Unfortunately the horrible death would come long before you even reach the event horizon. The tidal forces would tear you apart and eventually, tear apart the molecules that used to make up you. Every depiction of crossing a black hole event horizon just pretends that doesn’t happen for the sake of demonstration.

My favorite use is actually just to help me name stuff. Give it a short description of what the thing does and get a list of decent names. Refine if they’re all missing something.

Also useful for finding things quickly in generated documentation, by attaching the documentation as context. And I use it when trying to remember some of the more obscure syntax stuff.

As for coding assistants, they can help quickly fill in boilerplate or maybe autocomplete a line or two. I don’t use it for generating whole functions or anything larger.

So I get some nice marginal benefits out of it. I definitely like it. It’s got a ways to go before it replaces the programming part of my job, though.

He became a rogue scholar, huh? A dark path that leads only to evil scientist.

deleted by creator

I don’t think it’s working. LLMs don’t have any trouble parsing it.

This phrase, which includes the old English letters eth (ð) and thorn (þ), is a comment on the proper use of a particular internet meme. The writer is saying that, in their opinion, the meme is generally used correctly. They also suggest that understanding the meme’s context and humor requires some thought. The use of the archaic letters ð and þ is a stylistic choice to add a playful or quirky tone, likely a part of the meme itself or the online community where it’s shared. Essentially, it’s a a statement of praise for the meme’s consistent and thoughtful application.

It’s what OP’s parents call the first day they saw him.

I heard it more like, the fact that our universe is expanding faster than light, means there are parts of the universe we can never reach, even at light speed, which is mathematically identical to the event horizon of a black hole, which not even light can escape from. There’s not a singularity at the center of our observable universe, though.

Just to add to this… It’s not like there’s an event horizon like with a black hole. It’s just that in the amount of time it would take the light to reach us, there will have been more space “created” than the distance the light was able to travel. For someone living near the edge of our observable universe, there’s nothing strange happening. In fact, we’d be at the edge of their observable universe, the edge of their “event horizon.”

Well the reason we know is because we’re at the center of the observable universe and Earth isn’t a singularity.

The chance you’ll survive a half life is exactly the same whether MWI is real or not. It doesn’t give you any useful information. You have no way of distinguishing between being just that lucky or MWI being true.

That’s not the case with other experiments. If you assume your hypothesis is correct, the chance of the experiment being successful is higher than the chance of it happening by random chance if your hypothesis is not. That’s a key difference.

The experiment, as defined, only leads to your survival by random chance. The experiment does not create any outcome except by random chance so it cannot be used to prove anything.

Collect data, and show how it’s unlilely unless your hypothesis is true.

The quantum immortality experiment doesn’t do that, though. The outcome, by definition, always occurs within the realm of random chance. Your environment needs to create an outcome that is extremely unlikely to occur by random chance. The experiment is not repeatable. It makes no predictions about what’s going to happen if you try again. It doesn’t do anything useful to bolster the many worlds theory.

We butchered humanlike / 10

I don’t think it proves many worlds any more than it proves you have a fairy godmother manipulating quantum states for you. All you’ve done is shown an unlikely occurrence happened, not what caused it.

Sure you can move some parts of the conversation to a review session, though I think the answers will be heavily influenced by hindsight at that point. For example, hearing about dead end paths they considered can be very informative in a way that I think candidates assume is negative. Nobody expects you to get it right the first time and telling the interviewer about your binary tree solution (that actually doesn’t work) can be a good thing.

But the biggest problem I think with not being in the room as an interviewer is that you lose the opportunity to hint and direct the candidate away from unproductive solutions or use of time. There are people who won’t ask questions about things that are ambiguous or they’ll misinterpret the program and that shouldn’t be a deal breaker.

Usually it only takes a very subtle nudge to get things back on track, otherwise you wind up getting a solution that’s not at all what you’re looking for (and more importantly, doesn’t demonstrate the knowledge you’re looking for). Or maybe you wind up with barely a solution because the candidate spent most of their time spinning their wheels. A good portion of the questions I ask during an interview serve this purpose of keeping the focus of the candidate on the right things.

I’m not sure that offline or alone coding tests are any better. A good coding interview should be about a lot more than just seeing if they produce well structured and optimal code. It’s about seeing what kinds of questions they’ll ask, what kind of alternatives and trade offs they’ll consider, probing some of the decisions they make. All the stuff that goes into being a good SWE, which you can demonstrate even if you’re having trouble coming up with the optimal solution to this particular problem.

My way of thinking differs by saying if from my individuals perspective I experience the perfect coin (quantum particle) to flip tales a million times in a row there must be a highly likelihood that many worlds indeed exist since I died in the ones it said heads.

It doesn’t make that highly likely, though. It’s about equally likely that there’s a fairy controlling your coin flips. The experiment hasn’t proven anything about the cause of the unlikely outcome. You’ve just measured that it happened and then declared that your preferred explanation is the reason.

I think it definitely depends on the level of involvement and the intent. Sure not everybody who just asks for something to be made for them is doing much directing. But someone who does a lot of refinement and curation of AI generated output needs to demonstrate the same kind of creativity and vision as an actual director.

I guess I’d say telling an artist to do something doesn’t make you a director. But a director telling an AI to do the same kinds of things they’d tell an artist doesn’t suddenly make them not a director.

I’m fairly certain most people consider directing (film, music, art, etc) to be an artistic process.

It’s like the dumbest version of the trolley problem where the tracks are reversed. You could do nothing and people will die. Or you could pull the lever (convince a bunch of people not to vote for Harris) and a lot more people will die but, hey, at least you can say you did something.

DVDs (how many people even still own a player?) are not a real alternative to streaming for a number of reasons. Nor is “just watch something else on another platform.” Or, at least, if your claim is that entertainment is interchangeable then you’ve got no real complaint about YouTube. Hell, YouTube has its own ad-free subscription. By your own logic, the ads can’t be enshittificantion because you can just pay more to avoid it!

The enshittification of Netflix goes beyond just charging more. It’s any decision the company makes to make the user experience worse so they can make more money. That’s things like hiding your list and your recently watched shows so they can make you scroll through more recommendations. So then they can autoplay the content they stuck in your way. Recommendations that, like YouTube, are more concerned with what they want to monetize than what you actually want. And it’s restricting the way you used to be able to use the service, like on multiple TVs even within the same house, to get you to wade through a bunch of payment plans.

But my point still stands. Enshittification doesn’t require them to become a monopoly and start producing nothing but reality TV. It just describes the strategy shift that these companies inevitably make from making the platform better to attract more users, to making it worse to extract more money from the user base they’ve built up.