Can Google really complain? For years they bundled Chrome installers that set the browser as default with other random software. And every time you visited Google with Internet Explorer or Firefox, they told you to "upgrade" to Chrome.
Yes. Making deals to distribute their software is a well accepted practice and Chrome is far from the worst thing to come preinstalled. Advertising your wares on your own website is even more reasonable than that.
Observing when a competing browser is used to visit a competing site and then having the desktop OS open a popup crosses a very different line.
There is also a 1000X difference between a nanosecond keystroke delay and a microsecond keystroke delay. So that must be equally relevant since 1000 = 1000.
The way I read the json standard, the only way to include control characters is to encode them as hex. For example BEL can be encoded as "\u0007", but escaping it by using a backslash followed by a literal BEL character is not allowed. So literal control characters should never be in json text.
Even without any editor features from the last 20 years (like auto-adding and auto-closing braces), typing semicolons and curly braces should not end up taking a significant portion of time.
Typing doesn't take a significant portion of a programmer's time anyway. Automation on that half of the work is only so useful.
Checking the code on your screen against your internal mental model does take varying amounts of time. It depends on language syntax and how your mind works.
Different programmers internally think in different ways, it turns out.
In my case I found that I tend to look at the indentation primarily, and then I check parentheses and semicolons against the indentation.
(So in my case python lets me skip an entire step.)
> Using so much energy to play with language models is a waste of resources.
Why do you get to decide what's wasteful and what's useful?
We have more energy than we could ever hope to use from the sun and from nuclear. The solution isn't telling people they're wasting precious energy that you would put to better use. Just build more nuclear reactors and more solar.
I mean, this is a fair point but right now you're not talking to a libertarian who believes the technology inevitably governs itself, to the destruction of all around it.
You're talking to more of a civilization-type who believes you have to use regulation and, if necessary, state violence to stop types of mining that kill habitats, because the technology certainly isn't going to up and decide to do that. It's the job of society to figure this stuff out, arrive at such positions and defend them. There are plenty of good reasons to defend the protection of habitats, even for purely self-interested pragmatic reasons.
reply