"Embarrassingly" considered harmful?

"Embarrassingly" considered harmful is all you need.

Programming Introduction to "Embarrasingly" considered harmful is all you need in 21 hours.

I don't think of 9 as really being a signal to the process at all, more of an instruction to the OS kernel to terminate the process

If that theory holds - have to ensure that the models have not been trained on any code that is licensed incompatibly with the GPL, in which case the models could not be distributed at all

So specified .. that it can actually prove it can't be completely specified by any single specification

All mathematical statements we care about fall out of the purview of incompleteness

To the contrary (as summarised by Gemini):

Gödel showed that arithmetic cannot prove everything about itself.

Turing showed that computers cannot predict everything about themselves.

Rice showed that we cannot automatically verify what programs will do.

Chaitin showed that mathematics is full of random, unprovable facts.

Lawvere showed that they are all failing for the exact same structural reason!

These are not fringe issues. They define the absolute boundaries of human and machine intelligence.

Right so strictly speaking C++ could do anything here when passed a null pointer, because even though assert terminates the program, the C++ compiler cannot see that, and there is then undefined behaviour in that case

> because even though assert terminates the program, the C++ compiler cannot see that

I think it should be able to. I'm pretty sure assert is defined to call abort when triggered and abort is tagged with [[noreturn]], so the compiler knows control flow isn't coming back.

Shouldn't that be the "dam spelling" then?

Film score composers are quite famous for borrowing from 12 tone serialism - quite a bit of discussion on it available by Googling or using your favourite chatbot

Money is a social construct, not some kind of physical quantity subject to conservation laws, and can be and is introduced into the economic system all the time. The real question is really would introducing more money or a UBI cause social disruption by e.g. disrupting price signalling by high inflation or changing incentives to work so less goods and services that people actually value are produced.

One important function of money is allocation of resources, and if a society is bad at allocating resources, it declines.

It is a social construct but if you just print money you get ... inflation. You can't just increase money supply to redistribute wealth without consequences.

A trit is log(3)/(8log(2))=0.19812031259014 of a byte

The verifier doesn't need to be deterministic, just to output a proof artifact that can be independently validated for correctness.