The tool on the page. If you try a large repo it will indeed hit that limit, offer a button to authenticate yourself, but if you click that button it never loads the target URL.

I wouldn't recommend it. Installing Python packages not in a venv is asking for trouble. Why do you care anyway?

And you’re making the assumption that it could be. Why am I the only one who needs to show anything?

"Could be" is the null hypothesis.

any person

Hmm I'm guessing you don't have children.

What do you mean, “certain of the answer?” It’s math

Oh dear. I dunno where to start here... but basically while maths itself is either true or false, our certainty of a mathematical truth is definitely not. Even for the cleverest mathematicians there are now proofs that are too complicated for humans to understand. They have to be checked by machines... then how much do you trust that the machine checker is bug free? Formal verification tools often have bugs.

Just because something "is math" doesn't mean we're certain of it.

Can I ask where’s your proof?

I don't have proof. That's my point. Your position is no stronger than the opposite position. You just asserted it as fact.

I think understanding requires knowledge, and LLMs work with statistics around text, not knowledge.

You're already making the assumption that "statistics around text" isn't knowledge. That's a very big assumption that you need to show. And before you even do that you need a precise definition of "knowledge".

Ask me a thousand times the solution of a math problem, and a thousand times I’ll give you the same solution.

Sure but only if you are certain of the answer. As soon as you have a little uncertainty that breaks down. Ask an LLM what Obama's first name is a thousand times and it will give you the same answer.

Does my daughter not have any knowledge because she can't do 12*2 reliably 1000 times in a row? Obviously not.

it’ll just make things up

Yes that is a big problem, but not related to this discussion. Humans can make things up too, the only difference is they don't do it all the time like LLMs do. Well actually I should say most humans don't. I worked with a guy who was very like an LLM. Always an answer but complete bullshit half the time.

they contain information about—the statistical relations between tokens. That’s not the same as understanding what those tokens actually mean

Prove it. I assert that it is the same.

This is a timely reminder and informative for people who want to seem smug I guess? Or haven't really thought about it? ... that the word "understand" is definitely not defined precisely or restrictively enough to exclude LLMs.

By the normal meaning of "understand" they definitely show some level of understanding. I mean, have you used them? I think current state of the art LLMs could actually pass the Turing test against unsophisticated interviewers. How can you say they don't understand anything?

Understanding is not a property of the mechanism of intelligence. You can't just say "it's only pattern matching" or "it's only matrix multiplication" therefore it doesn't understand.

Ada is not strictly safer. It's not memory safe for example, unless you never free. The advantage it has is mature support for formal verification. But there's literally no way you're going to be able to automatically convert C to Ada + formal properties.

In any case Rust has about a gazillion in-progress attempts at adding various kinds of formal verification support. Kani, Prusti, Cruesot, Verus, etc. etc. It probably won't be long before it's better than Ada.

Also if your code is Ada then you only have access to the tiny Ada ecosystem, which is probably fine in some domains (e.g. embedded) but not in general.

Yeah sure, but that's true of every job. Would you rather be a waiter or a cashier or a cleaner or a teacher or a nurse or...?

The level of entitlement here is insane.

IMO multiple cursors give you 90% of Vim's power without forcing you to learn a gazillion mnemonics.

Ctrl-D is all you need.

git diff -w only ignores whitespace within a line (e.g. changing indentation). It doesn't ignore adding or removing new lines.

But even if it did, wrapping a function call or a long string can introduce extra commas or quotes.

Yeah but sometimes you do get meaningless changes that aren't just whitespace even with auto formatters. For example if you change the indentation on some code and that causes it to wrap an expression.

Yeah exactly. You made it faster through algorithmic improvement. Like for like Python is far far slower than C++ and it's impossible to write Python that is as fast as C++.

I totally agree, with some caveats:

1. It can make the UI much nicer (though I agree there are probably better ways to do it, e.g. native support for letting the program output determine the UI).
2. Sometimes you need to run different things on different machines/OSes, and it's easier if you have separate steps there.