Practical programming itself does not require this kind of math. The stuff you’re trying to make a program do might; but even then I don’t think you’ll have difficulty in that context. The stuff you’re learning now will have had time to “settle”, and you’ll be working towards a concrete goal, which makes it easier in my experience.

Another thing is that just because you’re struggling right now doesn’t mean you’ll be struggling forever. Math didn’t really click for me until I took calculus. I had a math professor who it didn’t click for until their junior year of college as a math major.

So don’t sweat it. But it’s always a good idea to have another career idea or two in your back pocket just in case. There are lots of reasons you might not want to be a programmer as a career. You might hate it. You might love it enough that you want to be able to do it freely instead of at the behest of others for money.

These kinds of anxieties are normal for someone your age (assuming you’re not nontraditional student). But one day you’ll look behind you in all these worries will seem unjustified. Everything will almost certainly turn out fine.

deleted by creator

As a USian, I’m more than happy to have europe take care of their own security, go right ahead 👍

ba dum chhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I am so much more tired of people trotting this joke out every year than I ever was of pumpkin spice.

You could just wait

OP clearly expects LLMs to exhibit mind-like behaviors. Lying absolutely implies agency, but even if you don’t agree, OP is confused that

It did not simply analyze the best type of graphics card for the situation

The whole point of the post is that OP is upset that LLMs are generating falsehoods and parroting input back into its output. No one with a basic understanding of LLMs would be surprised by this. If someone said their phone’s autocorrect was “lying”, you’d be correct in assuming they didn’t understand the basics of what autocorrect is, and would be completely justified in pointing out that that’s nonsense.

I know, but it’s a ridiculous term. It’s so bad it must have been invented or chosen to mislead and make people think it has a mind, which seems to have been successful, as evidenced by the OP

ChatGPT does not “hallucinate” or “lie”. It does not perceive, so it can’t hallucinate. It has no intent, so it can’t lie. It generates text without any regard to whether said text is true or false.

I still donate to … uBlock

From https://ublockorigin.com/:

The uBlock Origin project still specifically refuses donations at this time

Who are you giving money to?

We don’t have a way to do this. I don’t think we ever will. Wish the answer was different.

The one thing I will say is that logical argument is extremely ineffective for changing people’s views. Personal, emotional stories are best. The issue is that war and the draft is already highly emotionally charged, so it’s gonna be hard to find something that will strike a nerve with someone who hasn’t already come around on it.

Ridiculous. This line is clearly gay.

Goes for celebs and corporations, too.

Made me literally laugh out loud

As long as we’re living in fantasy land, let’s go the full nine yards and seize all his assets.

I am always saying this. And that medicare for all/socialized healthcare is the moderate position. The extreme position is that terminal patients should be tasked with spending their precious last moments of life navigating the private insurance bureaucracy.

It does, because we’re talking about the total lifespan instead of remaining lifespan. A person who is 120 may have a 10% chance of living another year; but a 50 year old probably has less than a 1% chance living 71 more years. Of course the 50 year old probably has more than a 99% chance of living another year. So the older you are, the older your expected total lifespan is, even if your expected remaining lifetime is shorter.

So, to recap:

Someone pointed out that Republicans did January 6th, a violent attempt to seize control of the government by overturning the results of the election. You then gave examples of Democrats supposedly doing the same thing. I pointed out that none of the examples you gave were anything like January 6th. You then gave reasons why January 6th wasn’t bad. I pointed out that none of those reasons changed the fact that it was a violent attempt by Republicans to seize control of the government by overturning the results of the election. You still have not provided an example of the Democrats doing the same thing.

Now you say, well, people from both parties do violence sometimes, so let’s call it a draw. I appreciate the wisdom of making a strategic retreat, but no. You made bad arguments. Now you have to admit you are wrong one of two ways. You could just be explicit, come out and say it. More likely you’ll do it implicitly, by changing the subject or not responding at all.

I’m not really keen to get into an argument about which party is responsible for more violence

I get it. I don’t like getting into losing arguments either.

Yes, Trump and the GOP party leadership spent months plotting to overthrow a legitimate election, but when it came time to do so, one line in a speech sounded nice. Then the protest started getting violent and destructive. To be clear, they were doing this for him (in the sense that they wanted him to continue to be president). He could have shown up and told them to stop and they would have. But he didn’t. He made no meaningful attempt to stop it at all. He did, however, say something nice earlier in the day. That’s true.

Yes, I said murdered when I should have said manslaughtered. Sorry. The protest was still violent. I’ve seen the footage; they managed to make me feel sorry for a cop.

I did never make a claim as to the level of damage. I’ve never really thought about the dollar amount; it’s more about the fact that they broke in. If someone broke into my house, I wouldn’t be worried about the dollar amount of the damage. I’d be worried about what that means about their intent.

You are being obtuse. None of the differences you’ve pointed out are salient. None of the similarities you have implied are. The post you replied to never said “Democrats would never…”, nor did I. And I disagree that Democrats actually did. The examples you gave are nothing like January 6th, except in facile similarities like the location of the events. I will say though, I agree that you aren’t enlightened or morally superior.

All of those things did happen, but they are worlds apart from Jan 6.

Your first link is clearly a peaceful demonstration; they didn’t even damage any property as far as I can tell. The article calls it “civil disobedience,” and apparently the vast majority were arrested for “demonstrating in the Capitol”. I shouldn’t have to remind you that the Jan 6 insurrectionists destroyed property and murdered people with the express intent of taking over government.

Your second link is again a peaceful demonstration. People were again arrested for “unlawfully demonstrating”. There is no mention of any destruction of property or injury. And again, they were not trying to seize the government.

Your third link is closest. There was obviously destruction of property and while no one got hurt, someone absolutely might have[1]. But even then, this was not an insurrection by and for the Democrats; it was from a fringe left group. Democrats immediately and to this day condemn the attack. Jan 6 was orchestrated by the leadership of the Republican party, and still receives support from said leadership.

Anyway, this is you:

[1]: The bombers did make an effort to not hurt people: they gave 30 minutes notice, and the explosion happened in the early hours of the morning. But something could still have gone wrong.