This has been my case. I feel like I am ordering them to do task and verifying that they do exactly what I tell them to do. Rinse and repeat. My empty mind wanders off into thinking what task can I ask them to do.
Eclipses have a special consequence to the human history. It is noted by Asimov that the first correct prediction of the Eclipse was done in May 28, 585 by Thales of Miletus and this event is considered the "Birth of Science". It took approximately 1500 years from the first (recorded) observation of eclipse (in china), the correct prediction of the solar eclipse in advance. This is truly marvelous.
Incidentally, unknown and not connected with the prediction, during the same eclipse, a 5 year battle between Medes and the Lydians came to stop as the armies got scared, if it was a divine intervention and they let their arms down.
Thales' supposed prediction of a solar eclipse is not considered plausible by experts in the history of astronomy. At the time and for long afterward there was no sufficiently accurate data / theory to predict solar eclipses.
There are a wide range of speculations about what Herodotus might have meant by the relevant passage:
> [...] another combat took place in the sixth year, in the course of which, just as the battle was growing warm, day was on a sudden changed into night. This event had been foretold by Thales, the Milesian, who forewarned the Ionians of it, fixing for it the very year in which it actually took place. The Medes and Lydians, when they observed the change, ceased fighting, and were alike anxious to have terms of peace agreed on.
Herodotus doesn't give any additional details. Later people assumed he must have meant a solar eclipse and the one of the only ones that makes sense for the place is the one of 485 BC, but there are plenty of historical details that make that seem dubious. For example, that eclipse would have arrived around sunset, and one of the kings Herodotus mentioned apparently died about 10 years before that.
It is well documented that the Antikythera mechanism could predict solar and lunar eclipses. The device's operation was based on 7th century BC Babylonian astronomy, specifically the Saros cycle, and Greek astronomy. The theory and data was definitely present in Thales' time.
The Antikythera mechanism is 4 centuries after Thales, during which time there was extensive additional study done by Greek astronomers. Evidence of old solar eclipse predictions seems pretty sparse; I can't figure out when the first successfully predicted solar eclipse was that we are certain about.
CHICKEN is a compiler that translates Scheme source files into C, which in turn can be fed to a C compiler to generate a standalone executable. An interpreter is also available and can be used as a scripting environment or for testing programs before compilation.
The less-eval-friendly thing is R5RS only requires two possible "environment specifiers" (2nd arg to eval), returned by SCHEME-REPORT-ENVIRONMENT and NULL-ENVIRONMENT, with no special form or procedure to get the current lexical environment; and R4RS (I just checked) does not specify eval. There's pretty much no manipulation of environments in the standard; the best is something like
Scheme is hygeneic, yes. Which is why sandboxing works.
If you want to manipulate the current environment, and defeat half the point of the language, then you're allowed that through (user-initial-environment).
(define-syntax) will also let you rewrite the bindings however you require.
Edit: Here's an eval macro I use fairly often:
(define-syntax constexpr
(syntax-rules ()
((_ expr)
(begin
(syntax->datum
(datum->syntax
(quote-syntax here)
(eval 'expr (interaction-environment))))))))
(define (factorial n)
(if (<= n 1)
1
(* n (factorial (- n 1)))))
(define n
(constexpr (factorial 10)))
By the current lexical environment I meant the lexical environment at some place in the code (not just the top-level one, which user-initial-environment gives, though it's optional). I'm not attempting to make a case for anything; but without that RnRS' eval doesn't grant more expressivity than just tacking on an interpreter to every program, which you could also just do yourself. (It also doesn't complicate the implementation; variable names don't need to be preserved after compiling.) I.e. it makes sense to say standard Scheme has been less "eval-friendly," even if there were good reasons or one doesn't care.
R5RS supports reader macros? Which would be 1998, and I guess only 28 years ago.
That's why SRFI-49 and its descendants were a possibility. Wisp, JavaScript, brainfuck, etc. implementations all exist because the tools exist in the language.
> I’ve always believed the No.1 application of AI should be to improve human health. It’s time for AI to prove its unequivocal value to the world, and what better way to demonstrate that than to help finally cure diseases like cancer.
Here is someone spelling out explicitly what we should be discussing.
More power to you, Demis Hassabis. Thank you!
Why? OP has assembled it out of public information via company filings etc., and is releasing it as a supplement to a report to the field. It seems like you didn't read the accompanying notes at all.
why should it be so? we collected it from open sources and analised very carefully to put all the markers. so i think there is no law that can say "make it private".
The interesting thing is, US media, US social media driven by Big Tech algorithms, Google Search, nytimes, reddit, Social newsfeeds of students, teens, teachers is not exposing this at all. It feels like we are self-contained information exposure bubble too. Only a physical visit outside of US, and looking at the information from outside of US will give a picture of the mistakes being made here.
The national debt was in the news a lot in the 90s and 00s and the sky didn't fall. Now both parties have decided they don't care, and I'm sure they'll find other things to blame when growth shrivels etc.
reply