To be fair, you don’t need a very huge 3D printer for that, if you divide it into a lot of smaller parts which can be assembled later.
Idk, if we can already print steel though and whether we can make it structually sufficiently stable.
To be fair, you don’t need a very huge 3D printer for that, if you divide it into a lot of smaller parts which can be assembled later.
Idk, if we can already print steel though and whether we can make it structually sufficiently stable.
It’s not just text generating AI, like those transformer models, but also image classificators and generators, time series predictors, and a bunch of other stuff you get.
But yes, even though you seem not to like it, it is AI.
Copilot is no more “intelligent” than Clippy from Microsoft Bob in 1995.
I can’t share that experience.
It just appears to be to people who also have low intelligence.
That’s a bit condescending, don’t you think?
A lot of stuff can be made a lot cheaper than it’s sold.
No.
You get AI tools shoved down your throat everywhere nowadays. Whether you want it and it’s useful or not.
They just fuck with Kenyans. And that’s obviously okay, because they are not part of the western nations. /s
Flying fucking spaghetti monster! This is a post posted in the community “Fuck Cars” everything here has to do with cars! More specifically, this post criticises cars for their bad environmental impact, contrary to other modes of transportation illustrated in the post.
Why don’t you look it up yourself?
How much emissions do cars cause per passenger and travelled distance?
Go back to kindergarten.
It’s objectively worse than Firefox. For example, Firefox recently passed all minimum security requirements by the German Federal Office for Information Security. No other browser meets them.
Let’s see how long it takes them this time to take it down again.
There are mobile Linux distros.
I am looking forward to installing Ubuntu Touch on my device:
https://ubuntu-touch.io/
https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/
There are also a bunch of others, which I haven’t looked into.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_mobile_devices
Because there is no “experience” after death. You just start to rot.
How come that you refuse this so confidently?
Here just a few works from that wide field:
The Abrahamic religions do not have a monopoly on the concept of God.
Yes. I just made few examples on popular concepts. And I can make similar examples for a lot of other concepts. However, to discuss this further, we need some clear definitions.
Do the ridiculous things now ascribed to electricity […] prove that electricity doesn’t exist?
This is a form or erroneous attribution. It reminds me of the luminiferous aether of which physicists thought for a long time that it exists until it was disproven. This is a testable hypothesis. Your pixies might even be testable to a certain degree. But beyond a certain point they aren’t. Therefore being in the realm of pseudoscience again.
If we observe electricity, of course elctricity exists. But if we don’t know its cause, it’s important to investigate it. We have to investigate cause and effect instead of just assuming that a higher power plays a role. That’s our only way to gain knowledge and separate fantasy from reality.
And currently, religions with their concepts of deities reside in the realm of fantasy.
Debugging fucked up C/C++ code for example.
Of course we can. We have means to observe the dying process. There is already a lot of scientific knowledge on that topic.
That is a bad comparison IMO. We have piles and piles of hard evidence the Earth is round. Saying the Earth is flat is just factually incorrect at this point.
We also have a lot of evidence that snakes can’t speak, people can’t turn plain water into wine, walk on the water and so on.
But the existence of God. I would argue we have no hard evidence of God’s existence nor do we have hard evidence that God doesn’t exist.
Claiming something which can neither be proven or disproven is what constitutes a pseudoscience. By that logic I could claim that we are in fact giant pink elefants hopping around on the moon, while imagining our reality as we currently think to perceive it. Since you can’t disprove that, I must be right. Or am I not?
As far as science is concerned it is still a theory.
No. A scientific theory can be proven or disproven, while the idea of a God, as interpreted in most religions, can not. Thereby constituting a pseudoscience. And thus, it’s not a scientific theory.
On top of that what makes a god a God there are multiple definitions of a God.
I suppose in the context of the parent comment the abrahamic God is meant, as interpreted by Christians, Jews and Muslims.
In practise, we probably don’t. But maybe we could speed up a lot of progress if we could remove some obstacles and think about it really carefully.
Hahahaha absolutely. :D The difference is, that they come from a 3D printer and that’s cool.