I’m not convinced he really believes that OpenAI is going to roll out AGI in the next ten years, but I’m completely sure he’s determined that it’s a good marketing strategy to make people believe that he believes it.

I think a long time ago a vicious cycle began in the advertising space where predatory ads had more incentive to pay for ad space, so sensible people start to perceive ads in general as predatory. Now no sensible advertiser that’s trying to promote a legitimate product for legitimate reasons will do so by buying ad space, thus reinforcing the increasingly accurate perception that all ads are predatory.

This is a rare case where sentient is being used correctly. Sentient beings do have feelings, e.g. dogs and cats are sentient and can have cravings and even feel hate.

Sapient means having enough intellect to understand and reason about the situation. The post doesn’t actually require that.

A statement like “veganism is unhealthy” is so objectively wrong that it really harms your credibility in general. I wonder how much you actually read from the article, or did you just grab the title and run with it?

There are a small number of specific nutrients that are readily available in meat that are harder to come by in a vegan diet. Harder but entirely possible, especially with supplements.

And many of the meat alternatives that you were disparaging earlier are specifically engineered to provide those nutrients (in particular Impossible and Beyond brands).

“Veganism is unhealthy” in the same way that any eating pattern is unhealthy if you aren’t mindful of what you’re eating. Conventional meat-based diets have much higher risk of heart disease due to high cholesterol, so let’s go ahead and label that unhealthy too.

If you think prices will be high without the use of fossil fuels, oooh boy just wait for the coming climate collapse that will obliterate all modern agriculture, create billions of climate refugees, decimate human civilization as we know it, and end all global supply chains.

Using visual studio code this only happens if the library has thorough type annotation. While that’s becoming more popular, it’s not enforced at the language level so lots of libraries have enormous gaps in the autocomplete.

It only took me ~2 weeks of playing with Rust before it became my scripting language of choice over Python (which I had been using casually for ~5 years by that point).

The initial setup for Rust can be whipped up with $ cargo init. You’re right that there’s more setup boilerplate because of the mandatory Cargo.toml and directory structure, but cargo init will provide all that in a snap.

As for the domain specific boilerplate, I actually find that Rust is better at that than Python in almost all cases. I feel that Rust’s clap is much simpler, more reliable, and less boilerplate than Python’s argparse. Python might win in cases where there’s a very mature domain specific package that you need which isn’t available in the Rust ecosystem, but that’s becoming rare as crates.io grows.

And then when it comes to the actual “scripting”, very often my IDE’s intellisense can practically fill in the Rust code for me. One keystroke per word and it knows what function I want, or I can quickly scroll through the recommendations until I find what I’m looking for. Meanwhile with Python I always have to consult docs to find any API that isn’t part of the basic standard library. As a result I’ll often get the scripting done faster in Rust than in Python.

It does absolutely take some time to reach that point, though. Most programmers will definitely feel significant discomfort with Rust initially, but that’s just because you need to deprogram your brain from the bad habits that other languages encourage. There’s a tipping point in that deprogramming where all the other languages start to feel uncomfortable because you know it won’t let you write as good quality of code as Rust would.