sacredfire

I don’t know, when we start talking about power users my mind goes to developers and most seem to not like windows. At least that has been my experience. Most of us prefer unix based systems, primarily because we have to use it to interact with like almost every server anyway. And of course I’m not just talking about different Linux distos, Mac is essentially Unix based and is in heavy use in a lot of shops.

Ooof my guy, the comment you originally replied to - to brag about how easy sql is - literally said he had an IT director 20 years ago trying to get everyone in the department to write SQL queries, where did he mention frontend dash boards? How can an IT director be that stupid... what is this thread about and why do you think he shared that anecdote? A thread about idiots asking for stupid shit... I wonder what could possibly be reason, we may never know but I'm sure you'll explain it to us.

What could possibly go wrong letting non-programmers write raw sql directly to the production db, it's pretty easy right.

But by this same logic anything can be "proven". If I see evidence of an abrhamic god, then I can prove its existence. This is not a novel or sufficient observation to meet the criteria that imperical based science is held to. The claim must also be falsifiable, just how a metaphysical God can always escape attempts to disprove it by relying on the imperical nature of science i.e. we can't really prove or disprove anything objectively, the counter effect is that it can't be proven under the scientific imperical framework either. I will admit I'm not well versed in the evidence for ST which you have referenced, but how would it be falsifiable? It seems any attempt can always be handwaved away as it's simply too complex a simulation... God works in mysterious ways right. To me this puts it squarely in the metaphysical realm, which isn't a bad thing per say, but again speaks to the intent of the meme.

By this same logic we can exclude the possibility of simulation theory, no? By your own logic it's not a stretch to "exclude the possibility" of something "because it’s a possibility that we can’t observe by any means". I believe goes back to the point of the meme: self proclaimed logical actors believing in something unprovable and thus proving themselves to be hypocrites...

But at that point, isn't that no different than just saying the universe isn't a simulation? If there is a base universe than that is the "actual" universe, and who cares about all the simulations beyond what we would care about a simulation we created? For this to be the case, I feel like there would need to be some additional features or complexities about this base universe that can't be simulated and thus that allows those in it to prove that they are not a simulation. The issue the simulation universes have is that if they could create a simulation of their own universe they are immediately confronted with the conundrum that they themselves are probably not the first one to do this. But this theoretical base universe would have some characteristic about it that precluded them from this issue. Or maybe they don't, maybe they think they're simulation too but they're not and have no way to prove otherwise, they just happen to be the base. However, if that is the case, then you can make that same argument for this universe can't you?

Why does a pre-trained model need expensive private hardware after it was trained, other than to handle API requests faster? Is Open AI training chat-GPT on inferior hardware compared to these sophisticated private versions you mentioned?