Catch is perhaps a strong word. Trade-off would be more accurate.
Every action in the known universe (and surely in some unknown ones too) results in a trade-off. This is maybe the only precept on software architecture that doesn't "depends" on anything and is closer to natural law.
Sure, but there's usually plenty of other tradeoffs in any system of notable complexity. This is certainly a system of notable complexity. We may find that there is mental degradation that's not covered by this. We may discover that cancer is practically unavoidable if you live long enough, and the problem compounds even further with age than we can anticipate now. There's never just one lever being pulled in isolation.
I mean, if you gain +20 years of longevity to most of the body, but not to mind? That's still 20 extra years of lifespan if you're lucky. And if you aren't, it's still better health in general, until your mind goes.
There are old people who remain lucid and active well into their nineties, not getting dementia or cancer - through some combination of good luck, good genes and good lifestyle choices. They live a good life - until a stroke cripples them, or the heart fails them, or a very mundane illness like flu puts them in bed and they never quite recover from it. If that couldn't happen to them, how many more good years would that buy them?
Any treatment that addresses the aging-associated systematic decline in bodily functions should be extremely desirable. Even if it wouldn't help everyone live longer, it would help a lot of people live better lives nonetheless.
My personal thought on the "catch" (of "curing death") is that we seriously don't understand how removing or slowing evolution in the equation at the population level plays out over time. Evolution seems to be a fairly robust and complex subsystem of reality.
If this is correct, which I partially believe it is, it's even worse.
It's not measuring the "useful" kind of stress, like when you're on-call or in active incident handling.
It's just measuring how you approach problem solving and coding while being judged and looked at, on the spot, which is *hardly* a common scenario in real life!
Never understood the "I'm solar" or "I'm nuclear" crowd.
The issue is an engineering problem, not a baseball match.
As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths.
Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.
The nuclear boosters are particularly odd. I can engage in solar boosterism with my own money: I have 3.7kW on my house. I'm not going to have a backyard reactor, this isn't the Jetsons.
If it's monetary gain then thats a political not one in residence.
If not producing enough power then that's a people's problem. Being greedy taking more than what they need and for not enough resources on building efficiency.
Overall solar works. It's just gate-kept tightly by evil organisations who are scared to lose their dirty cash for such technology to evolve.
And why would a landlord sink $10,000+ in to a property for no return.
Roof top solar only works for the user who has the roof top solar.
For everyone else it makes electricity more expensive.
Happy to be proven wrong. Show me a majority of places with high roof top solar penetration where per kWh electricity rates have fallen.
And who cares about carbon emissions, China and India have that covered - I don’t need to worry about producing more or less CO2 emissions because it won’t make any difference whether or not I believe in catastrophic climate change.
That's an interesting point, but a much less costly option is to change policies to incentivize landlords, not build multi-billion dollar nuclear plants.
> And who cares about carbon emissions, China and India have that covered - I don’t need to worry about producing more or less CO2 emissions because it won’t make any difference whether or not I believe in catastrophic climate change.
That doesn't change the US's contribution, the ability of the US to form successful international agreements, and the influence of the US pulling its weight as a much wealthier country than China or India.
Blaming your neighbor for your bad behavior - I sell drugs off my porch because my neighbor does - doesn't make you less criminal. Also unacceptable, from moral and practical perspectives, is saying 'there's nothing I can do'. It's time we stop letting that pass.
In most places home rooftop solar systems are heavily subsidized by everyone else. Also, in almost all cases, the home installation doesn’t have enough battery power to actually last through inclement weather and so is free riding on the reliability provided by the grid, putting more costs on the less well off. The whole thing is sort of a reverse Robin Hood scheme. One might argue that we should be subsidizing solar energy, but then the subsidies should go to utility grade solar. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much further than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar.
As the statista.com report says >...Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If it wasn't for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 122 and 284 U.S. dollars per megawatt-hour.
We're weird because we want a proven power supply to be built and used? Are the French really that much more capable than the USA that we can't replicate or surpass what they've done in their country with nuclear?
Because, for now, those non-nuclear-capable states weren't interested in becoming nuclear-capable. On a standard PWR (the most common type of civilian industrial reactor) cooking military-grade plutonium is easy: charge it, let it start ('diverge') and then run, all as usual, then shut it down early.
A lot of people in this type of threads always makes the same mistake: confusing what math is with branches of math, or rather, ways in which math is used. The way the education system is built certainly contributes to this.
I've always found the car metaphor to work very good to understand this: A car is a machine that can transport itself to point A to B (some other rules apply). There are different types of cars, but you certainly haven't understood the definition of you say that something is not a car because is not a Volvo, or because it doesn't look like a Ford, when it's clearly able to transport itself.
Math is the study of ideal objects and the way they behave or are related to each others. We have many branches of mathematics because people have invented so many objects and rules to play with them. Programming is nothing if not this very definition. The fact that you don't have to "use math" when programming is not really addressing the point, it's like saying a car is not a car because it has no discernible brand.
"Time is not a thing in math" is not understanding what math is. Time is another ideal object following certain rules under a given domain. Programming is coming up with objects of different size, with different characteristics, with interact at different points in time, i.e. following certain rules.
Is it possible your mental model of what CS is more aligned with software engineering rather than actual CS? Could you share some examples of what you consider to be CS but lacks any mathematical relation?
I agree is not a useful grouping in practice. I'm just interested in what makes you think like you do.
I did categorically not claim, nor even suggest, that any CS "lacks any mathematical relation".
What I claimed was that in computer science we often discuss things in terms that would not be the natural way of dealing with it in maths. We do that because our focus is different, and our abstractions are different.
It doesn't mean it's not math. It means it's not useful to insist that it isn't a different field, and its obtuse when people insist it's all the same.
You read it right. There's no contradiction. The famous original bit started with "a man and his son". This bit is certainly part of the LLM's training corpus, so it's expected to acknowledg it when you mention it.
The thing is, you didn't mention that bit to the LLM. You mentioned a completely different scenario, basically two persons who happen to be cousins. But you used the same style when presenting it. The issue is not a hidden contradiction or a riddle, the issue is that the LLM completely ignored the logical consequences of the scenario you presented.
It's like asking it about the name of the brave greek hero in the battle where the famous Trojan Cow was present. If you get "Achilles" is obviously wrong, there was never a Trojan Cow to begin with!
But you're also using "social media" a shorthand for "algorithmic-based attention-maximizing recommendation machine". That's the current implementation of the bigger and most impactful social networks.
Networks that don't work with that model, tend to be much more wholesome. And they work.
Sure, different forms of social media could exist. And then get outcompeted by as you aptly call it "algorithmic-based attention-maximizing recommendation machines".
Even if you introduced regulations against many of these practices, corporations would still strive to optimise this aspect of their platforms in different ways.
Even if we removed capitalistic incentives from the equation, more attention-grabbing platforms would still be selected for.
I'm not saying it's an intractable problem, but rather that this outcome is happening for a very good reason.
Yes, because it's not intractable. It's just a good definition and statement of the problem. Without that, you can even being thinking about solutions or make sensible assessments.
Sharks are not vicious killing machines. Hungry and aggressive instances of sharks are killing machines.
You'd need to somehow get rid of every predatory platform that exists to even entertain the notion of people making the switch to a new, less-engaging one.
Well these are messengers, not social media. The only social media platforms without algorithms I can think of are decentralized, i.e. what can be described as "fediverse".
