They added the addictive "superior" to describe mysqls implementation in their docs. That's the entire change. No code changes. Seems like a petty change antithetical to good documentation.
The effect of globalization is that the west is bringing the rest of the world over the poverty line at the cost of deteriorating ourselves. Hard to say how this will end.
Really cold weather doesn’t have much wind. It’s metrology. Without long term storage, wind power during the winter in the northern hemisphere is just meh. Same with any variable renewable energy source. Instead of celebrating the few times renewable energy actually produces energy when it’s needed we should celebrate every time a new Nuclear power plant comes online.
Generally speaking extreme temps don’t coexist with wind for very long. Wind, after all, convects air around, and fundamentally you’ll have the extremes mixed with non-extreme air.
Like a heat dome, for example, is only possible when there’s no wind to push the dome away.
Exactly this (plus floating point types and unsigned qualifier) and done. It’s standard C, there is no need to invent yet another unnecessary “type” system for standard C native types. I do like bool though.
Isn’t this the whole point of John Searl’s “the Chinese room” thought experiment? But does it matter what is actually going on inside the room, if the effect and function is indistinguishable? Edit: after conferring with ChatGPT, Searle’s point like yours is that the man in the room doesn’t understand Chinese, he is just manipulating symbols, but from the outside, the man in the room seems to speak fluent Chinese.
> they can't do math, work through basic logic problems
ChatGPT begs to differ:
Me: How do I measure 4 liters when I have a 3 liter bottle and a 5 liter bottle?
ChatGPT: Here are the steps to measure 4 liters using a 3 liter and a 5 liter bottle:
Fill the 5 liter bottle completely with water.
Pour 3 liters from the 5 liter bottle into the 3 liter bottle, leaving 2 liters in the 5 liter bottle.
Now you have 3 liters of water in the 3 liter bottle, and 2 liters of water in the 5 liter bottle.
Empty the 3 liter bottle, and pour the 2 liters from the 5 liter bottle into the 3 liter bottle.
Fill the 5 liter bottle again with water, and pour 1 liter from the 5 liter bottle into the 3 liter bottle, which already has 2 liters of water.
You will be left with 4 liters of water in the 5 liter bottle, which is the desired amount.
I entered your prompt and got the same reply from ChatGPT. Then I changed "4 liters" to "4 gallons" and got this:
To measure 4 gallons of liquid using a 3-liter and a 5-liter bottle, you would need to convert gallons to liters first. One gallon is approximately equal to 3.785 liters, so 4 gallons is approximately equal to 15.14 liters.
Since the available bottles have capacities of 3 liters and 5 liters, you will need to fill and empty the bottles several times to reach the target of 15.14 liters. Here's one way to do it:
Fill the 5-liter bottle with water.
Pour the water from the 5-liter bottle into the 3-liter bottle until it's full, leaving 2 liters of water in the 5-liter bottle.
Pour the 2 liters of water from the 3-liter bottle into a separate container.
Repeat steps 1-3 two more times, which will leave you with a total of 6 liters of water in the separate container.
Fill the 5-liter bottle with water again and pour as much as possible into the separate container until it's full. This will add 3 liters of water to the container, for a total of 9 liters.
Fill the 3-liter bottle with water and pour it into the separate container until it's full. This will add another 3 liters of water to the container, for a total of 12 liters.
Fill the 3-liter bottle with water again and pour as much as possible into the separate container until it's full. This will add 1 liter of water to the container, for a total of 13 liters.
Fill the 5-liter bottle with water and pour as much as possible into the separate container until it's full. This will add another 2 liters of water to the container, for a total of 15 liters, which is approximately 4 gallons.
Keep in mind that this method is approximate and assumes that 1 gallon is equal to 3.785 liters. If you need a more precise measurement, you may need to use a measuring container that is calibrated in gallons.
Starts off OK. Notice that it's eventual goal is to get 15 liters: good! But then it doesn't understand what it's doing so it messes around with the 3 liter bottle instead of knowing 3*5=15. Additionally, one of the times it fills the 3 liter bottle and pours all of it out but somehow only produces 1 liter.
And it uses the 5 liter bottle to top up the separate container leaving 2 liters, and then proceeds to fill up the separate container.
Looks like it's mixing up elements of the solution to the original problem without understanding how the topping up works, with the solution to a different problem that it felt was sufficiently related. It's a wild guess based on similarity.
Somethings in mathematics are constant, both here and on alpha centauri, like the circumference of a circle divide by its diameter is Π or the hypotenuse squared is the sum of each leg squared in a right triangle etc.
But neither of those facts are true in non-Euclidean geometries like Spherical Geometry or Hyperbolic Geometry. The jury is still out on whether the universe is flat or has some sort of curvature. Meanwhile spherical geometry is fundamentally useful because we live on a sphere, not on a plane, and it is more accurate at modeling the 2-D space that we navigate in.
My point being, assumptions get baked-in to systems in surprising ways. Even something seemingly-objective like math. Especially when you're using it as the basis for communication, then what counts as "basic" or "fundamental" or "standard" reflects a perspective, not a fundamental truth.
It's likely their mathematical systems would eventually reach the same conclusions as ours, but the prominence or significance of fields or results (like circles and triangles) might be radically different. Even though we view those components as absolutely fundamental, it's possible an equivalent system could be built from different primitives.
On a larger scale, the US Marshall Plan to help Europe back on its feet after WW2 was immensely important for Europe and for individuals. My uncle got help funding a successful garment factory in Bergen, Norway. He could employ over a hundred women, many widows. Those who still remember are forever grateful to the US. The same uncle also told me about how the Flesland airport outside Bergen was constructed. For years there had been bikesheeding about building an airport outside Bergen. After the war, it was finally constructed when NATO needed an airport. The US army came in with large bulldozers, shaved off the hilltops and put it into the valleys between the hills and in short time a large airstrip was made.
Look at the higher resolution photograph of the stone, not at the graphic sketch, which is slightly misleading.
For the fallen man, you can see the back of his head, on which it is clear that the hair is shown, and not a helmet, as on the enemy.
Besides the head, at the edge of the stone, there is something that looks like a ponytail, in the same way as the hair of the victorious warrior is shown. Moreover, the ponytail of both warriors is tied with a chord, which has at its 2 loose ends some kind of knots or decorations. The 2 ends of the chord are seen for both the victorious man and for the fallen man, and they look the same.
The resolution of the photograph is not good enough to make the identification of the feature at the side of the head as a ponytail certain.
Nevertheless, the hair on the back of the head and the presumed ponytail look very much, at least at this resolution, like the hair of the victorious warrior, and very unlike the helmet of the enemy.
Because the enemy wears a helmet, we cannot know for sure whether his hair was short or long. We can presume that his hair was short, as otherwise the helmet might have been uncomfortable.
Also from the loincloth of the enemy we see just a narrow edge, which is not covered by the shield.
I agree that the lower edge of the loincloth is similar for the fallen man and for the enemy, and this is the only similarity between them.
So we have:
Pro the fallen man being an enemy:
Similar lower edges of the loincloth.
Contra the fallen man being an enemy:
1. Completely different military equipment, spear and helmet and shield versus sword with a scabbard of an unusual form (common to the fallen man and to the victorious man).
2. Long hair tied in a ponytail versus presumably short hair under the helmet
The similar lower edges of the loincloth might be explained by all loincloths being similar. The victorious warrior might have been a richer warrior and he might have had some more expensive leather garment instead of a loincloth, like most other warriors.
