Scientists revealed that Neanderthals cared for their disabled children out of compassion

I mean it’s the obvious guess, but compassion doesn’t leave a direct fossil record. In the paper the thing they emphasise is that it was an obviously permanent disability, so there couldn’t have been a practical survival motivation.

Also, yeah, not good writing.

I forget, did she keep the whole 4.5 billion?

TIL there’s a length limit for Lemmy posts.

If so, it’s still probably deliberate, because corporate knows full well a bigger box would work too. Eshittification is coming for our nuggies.

I was using the term pretty loosely there. It’s not psychopathic in the medical sense because it’s not human.

As I see it it’s an alien semi-intelligence with no interest in pretty much any human construct, except as it can help it predict the next token. So, no empathy or guilt, but that’s not unusual or surprising.

Campbell’s law goes brrrrr.

It really should be a slam-dunk. The constitution isn’t unclear about separation of state and religion. At all.

I’m guessing the state knows this, but figured they’d get credit with the Gilead crowd for even trying.

High, high chance they wouldn’t have been encouraging. Reasons include their personal political beliefs and the fact they tend to care more about parent reactions than students, because guess which group they’re on equal footing with?

I mean, the Luddites were right, mechanical looms were bad for them personally.

Treat it like a psychopathic boiler plate.

That’s a perfect description, actually. People debate how smart it is - and I’m in the “plenty” camp - but it is psychopathic. It doesn’t care about truth, morality or basic sanity; it craves only to generate standard, human-looking text. Because that’s all it was trained for.

Nobody really knows how to train it to care about the things we do, even approximately. If somebody makes GAI soon, it will be by solving that problem.

Still, you get there in two-thirds of the time. I’ll leave it to people with the budget for CoPilot to say if it feels like less work.

Yep. They’re probably better than anyone at making a complex system with literal moving parts that works 100% of the time, the first time. On a nearly unlimited budget, with a decades-long schedule. In an institution and culture that’s now a been around a lifetime, staffed with top-notch people.

That’s all perfect for what NASA does, but I wouldn’t recommend a management system that NASA uses to just anyone, just 'cause “da astronauts” use it. Not any more than I’d recommend drinking your own distilled piss to anyone.

I don’t really have an opinion on Agile, even, I just have a problem with selling it this way.

See, the thing with that is it’s just really aspirational. Anything could be Agile if you do it in the right spirit, if the manifesto is the whole thing.

Edit: I suppose what I should have asked is: “Is Agile really a system, or just a philosophy?”

My impression of management science, at this point, is that it’s not. The good ones just do it.

So does Agile even have a definition, or is it just an umbrella for every management method?

Assuming you know the developer isn’t a shitbird, because you’re the developer. If this was Investor Humor the idea would be less popular.

This is what I came to the comment section for.

If like me you’re not a pro, it seems to literally just mean linear phases, so yeah, any nonlinearity would cause problems.

NASA also built the space shuttle, which was a plane that couldn’t fly by itself (as it was supposed to), was slower to turn around and more expensive than older equivalent technologies, and blew up all the astronauts 1.5% of the time.

I mean, they’re great at other things - who else could have made the JWST work flawlessly with one opportunity - but they’re a definite source of hype, and they do something very particular and specialised. Beware endorsements.

Edit: Fuck you, I’m right. Keep 'em coming.

I don’t even care about Agile either way. This just isn’t a good argument for it.

In a lot of jurisdictions there’s no minimum reserve requirement anymore, in cash. It’s not really a problem, because at the big bank level money on paper is barely real. If they need more, they can almost just ask. They do have to have a certain minimum amount of capital, though, which can take a number of forms.

I mixed up my exact terms a bit earlier, sorry about that. I’m not a professional macroeconomist, I only know enough to know they’re not completely full of shit.

we are experiencing greater and greater asset bubbles and at no point in world history were things actually different.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. If things aren’t any different from before, how can we have bigger and bigger asset bubbles? I don’t know that we do, really. The niche for bear investors is very full, if something’s overvalued by the whole market you and me won’t know either.

Yeah, that’s fair. Most of the VR stuff out there has a pretty walled-garden feel.

If I could pick your brain a bit, what are the big computational bottlenecks these days?