Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Theo - t3․gg"
channel.
-
83
-
72
-
69
-
4:36
No, really, this is really not that true. Even in assembly days people were already trying to get rid of it because it was just not that practical. It obviously sounded like something hard to grasp, like "how the 'compiler' will make better optimized assembly code than us", but the unpracticality of assembly was very clear from the beginings (people already used a LOT of macros at the time, and this makes writing assembly way less manual labor than writing it manually, so the jump is not that far).
It is completely different when you are selling a bs statistical machine that may or may not produce working code and, in the worst case, delete your whole database because people became so reliable on it they don't check things anymore (100% of the code writen, we know people take more time to read code than to write it, it is way harder to understand, the probability of hidden bugs is way higher as well, etc). The problematics of this are WAY different in this sense.
56
-
54
-
53
-
46
-
27
-
24
-
22
-
21
-
14
-
14
-
11
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@bangunny
Nah, I think this is a misconception. You can use tailwind before knowing CSS, and use your tailwind knowledge to use CSS better, or it can be the other way around: with your CSS knowledge you can know how to use tailwind better.
In principle, this is possible because tailwind is very descriptive, it says to you what it is doing, "bg-xxx" is clearly about a "background color", "w-xxx" is about "width", "pb-xxx" is about "padding bottom", etc... you learn by the naming and by the experience when using the tokens. After that you will use CSS, and you will start discovering there are those same keywords but in an "extended form", so the knowledge is very transferable.
8
-
7
-
@turnert2005
They don't need to have, but it's the PARENTS DUTY to do that, not the government's.
Kids had degenerate content available for them ALWAYS, from magazines to even going to a beach with family, and sometimes even walking on a street, and even at propaganda, and even at their own minds, and in schools.
Internet was not the cause of this, it was never the main problem, but a complete LACK of parenting and the desacralization of parental education. Everything is good if the government says so, but the parents can say nothing, this shit is destroying the world.
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I think this is a misguided opinion. Software developers are engineers, but also architects and also bricklayers, we do this all at once because software is that complex. It is obviously different from the physical engineering, but also not that different from all kinds of engineerings. It is plainly possible, for example, to build a simple robot as a proof of concept without needing to carefully plan it before, you need to have the right intuitions. Curiously, it is also possible to build a house without planning, I live in a country where this is kinda common and they tend to last for decades and more, they are obviously not marvelous constructions but are not explosive (bridges are in another league, but even they sometimes are made this way).
Being a software engineer, you don't need to care about physics (unless we are talking about performance), so it is usually not extremely dangerous to make mistakes, it is also expected as it has dozens or hundreds of moving parts, where in a bridge you only need to make it stable, reliable and durable. Those are different professions, you should not collapse their definitions like that to compare and say "this is not engineering and this is".
6
-
5
-
5
-
@
What exactly is this question supposed to mean? I live in brazil, here most cheap computers have this amount of disk space. Maybe "most" is a bit hyperbolic, but the defaults are around that, up to 500GB sometimes, but those are for newly bought ones. People that live in small cities have old machines from sometimes more than 15+ years ago, which means like second generation processors and such, small amounts of RAM (until I got my last PC, ~7 years ago, I had like 2GB or 4GB of RAM max, and after that I used one with 6GB for some years, the disk space was not much more than 128GB, it was almost always full). It's not that uncommon here.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@cemreomerayna463
1. I became angry because of your attitude towards my response, not because you offended me directly, nor because a "stupid technology". I'm just generally tired of AI apologists and people like the other guy in this comment that talk bs without any kind of appropriate reflection. But either way, sorry if my tone was not ideal for a discussion, I'm fine and this is all past now.
2. And what I'm saying, what I literally said in my comment, is that this is a fundamentally, computationally untractable problem. You understand what are the implications of this? The implications are that [it is not getting more reliable], or better, that the [reliability gains are marginal]. For one, reliability implies a grounded conscious compromise with the truthness of a sentence, you say someone is reliable when that person has a good amount of proven knowledge, has the right intentions (to seek truth) and has peers confirming that veracity, those conditions are generally reasonable to expect when we define reliability. Now, AI does not have 2 of these, it does not have true knowledge in any sense, it literally just spits tokens, it is [literally] how it works, you can make an AI say almost literally anything with the correct prompt, this is far from being possible to humans and is obviously a terrible sign for this prospect. It does not "understand", it spits the most probable token, it can be steered towards more "reliable" responses by reinforcement learning and other techniques (like dataset filtering or "grounding" with things like RAG and similars), but it is still fundamentally just spitting tokens in a specific order, there's no knowledge and it fails to suffice the condition (1). For (2), AI obviously does not have conscience, it also does not have any kind of known morality, it can just immitate and spit, it is extremely easy to understand why they can't by implication also not "compromise with the truth" nor "tell the truth" by any means imaginable, they are really just intrinsecally not reliable and that's the point. For coding the implications are exactly the same, coding language is not a "regular grammar", I don't know from where did you got that impression, most if not all mainstream programming languages are literally context-free grammars with specific context-sensitive aspects, even while structured (because they need to be parsed efficiently), they are obviously far from being as complex as natural language, but nowhere as simple as a "regular grammar". It is also the case that coding is extremely complex in and on itself, and even the best, most advanced, "reasoning" models make arguably extremely silly mistakes that you would expect from a complete amateur (like literally creating ficticious packages out of thin air, writing disfunctional code that does dangerous things like deleting what is not supposed to delete, and literally just having a basic to terrible understanding of coding patterns and expected solutions), I've used all models since even GPT-2 (obviously, it was unable to code almost anything but extremely short one liners that were terribly wrong almost all the time) to GPT-3 (terrible at coding, but was starting to enhance) up to 3.5 (way better, still terrible), 4 (mid at best, still very terrible), 4o (almost the same as 4, but a bit more precise), o1 ("reasons", but still commits the same basic mistakes I saw in 4o over time) to o3-mini-x (which is not that much better than o1). Those models are not more "reliable", they are better at making less obvious mistakes (which is arguably more dangerous, not less, as now you need to understand the semantics of the thing to catch those), they are making less brute mistakes, they are still making absolute copious amounts of silly problematic errors. Their "reliability" is getting marginally better with each new innovation, so what I'm saying is here.
3. This is not only false, but also a dangerous way of thinking in and on itself. See (2) for reasons why the reliability of humans is inherently less problematic, and truer, and even more: humans take responsibility of their actions, they are moral agents in the world, while AI agents are, again, just spitting words. If a human make a terrible fatal mistake, he would be fired or even sent to jail, he would have nightmares with his mistakes, a bot making mistakes is just a sociopath, cannot be held accountable, cannot feel anything, it's unpredictability is [absolutely dangerous], while humans have absolutely developed ways to deal with their uncertainty (ways that work, we literally delivered the man to the moon with a software so small that would be uncomparable with a hello world compiled in many of the most modern languages). Your response is unsuficient, and problematic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PrajwalDSouza
I did some tests with it, and while it is clearly way better in "reasoning" (if you think this word apply here) I don't think it is qualitatively better as people are pointing out. I tricked it pretty easily for example with some indirection in the problems I gave it, like try formulating a problem with a deceiving conclusion that anyone would catch if they really solved the problem but that is not obvious enought so it is untangled from the bigger problem, it will probably fail and try to justify the tricky part within the framing of the bigger problem instead of noticing they are contradictory.
I think the "memorized how to reason" in the video is a good way of putting it, even if not entirely accurate, for this particular reason.
But anyway, glad to be proven wrong and hopping the o1 (not preview) will be better, if it really solves problems in physics then we will have many advancements in technollogy very soon, if not, well, at least it was a funny toy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Immediate mode UIs are generally extremely simple in terms of layouting and style, this is the part of the picture you are missing. Rendering the DOM is slow because:
(1) We use JS to do it
(2) It is retained mode, so all the changes are cached and rendered the minimum as possible
(3) The layouting and styling system of modern HTML + CSS is [extremely complex], it allows you to do a huge amount of positioning, calculations, transformations, event based styles, very compound and complicated responsive layouts, animations, etc... all of those things take time, and they are pretty slow to work
It is a different beast altogether.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
[[Parents can't effectively protect their kids from all the "bad" stuff from the internet. That's just a fact of life.]]
They can protect them for the MOST part, and the rest is just unfortunate but also a fact of life, no government will solve this problem entirely as well.
Parents duty is to TEACH their children values, they should not need to control their kids entire lifes, they should teach them how to avoid this themselves and why it's BAD. If you can't do it, it's a failure from your side, or at least it's something out of your control, you cannot solve all the world's problems.
[[The government can (and will) provide an ID with a secure chip than can be scanned to extract only the information needed. Even better, that info can be a zero-knowledge proof that only says "you are >18 years old".]]
The government can (and will) control every single aspect of your ENTIRE life if he want to, he will adopt mass surveillance in the name of peace and will kill all the opposition if it needs to "in the name of democracy". The government WILL NOT do anything to gather LESS information, they will do EVERYTHING to make sure they are the ones getting all the information and companies get less, so you can be that they will make "zero-knowledge proofs, but pero no mucho".
[[The platform needs to comply with the law. No way around that.]]
Sure as hell, just like companies needed to comply with the law in the 1940 regime, but this does not make it a good thing.
[[The developers just have to use the zero-knowledge proof.
No 3rd party identity provider is needed.]]
"just have" is a very funny way to say that, if you knew the absurd difficulty which is providing a secure ZKP about personal identity without allowing pseudonyms, this will just not happen.
[[No one wants that, not even the governments.]]
You can bet your ass that they sure as hell want this, for them.
[[I can 100% assure you that when the EU will implement age verification next year, they will use a privacy-first system, probably a double-anonymity system with ZKP.]]
I can also assure you that when the next dictatorship forms in the EU, it will be even worse hell for the citizens of it than all the previous ones combined, because no one will know until it's too late.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:38
I've literally been using it for like 5 years now, and I must disagree.
Firstly, because there is literally no reason for it to be "laggy" and I never experienced lag with it (I think?, not anything I did not experienced with chrome based browsers in general before)
It has a bunch of cool ideas, it has it's own optional sidebar and customized reading lists (I don't care that much about it, but it is cool to have)
It feels very fast for browsing, and it literally removes most of the ads from websites for you, no need for third party extensions for that, it also filters cookies and has a bunch of anonymous features that are very cool (even a Tor browsing mode, which is not ideal for total privacy but good if you want to test some things), it also passes most privacy tests for relatively good privacy browsers.
I can't say nothing about the hotkey customization, I never felt the need to do this in a browser.
Web3 bullshit is just your own ideological opinion on the subject, so why this is even listed as a con? It does not get in your way, you can literally use the browser normally without ever needing to touch the web3 stuff, I almost never use it as well and could not care less about that
Other than that, it is a normal browser, so I don't see the reason why someone that uses chrome would not like that browser as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1