Kerfuffle

It's actually not that hard to start having them pretty frequently. I always had that same problem though: I'd realize I was dreaming, say "Wow, I'm actually dreaming and aware of it. This is amaz-" and wake up. There are supposedly tricks you can use to prevent yourself from waking up like spinning around, but it didn't seem to help even when I remembered to try in the dream.

You can make them more frequent by just thinking to yourself "Am I dreaming?" and checking if you are a bunch of times a day. 5-6 is probably enough. Keep that up for a few weeks and you'll probably start having frequent lucid dreams. I read that lucid dreams aren't really that restful compared to normal sleep though, so don't try to induce them unless you can spare the sleep time.

Ahh, I hate Snap so much. It actually what drove me to switch to Arch (btw). It was just so annoying going to install something and having it try to pull in snap and all its dependencies... And of course, if you don't want Snap you have to deal with the inconvenience of finding another way to install the app.

There are reasons to dislike Snap on principle and also very practical reasons. It liked randomly preventing the system from shutting down. Installing a new OS on a slow or unreliable internet connection and want a browser? How about we install Snap and then tell to download that thing and maybe a bunch of random internal dependencies with no visible progress and unreliable error handling? Get it away from me.

One of these is true:

1. Your account was hacked..
2. You have a serious memory issue.
3. Saying hateful, rude stuff is something you do so commonly you can't even keep track of the instances.

Pretty much all of those are problems that you should deal with.

As sad as it is to say, "in general" no product is. Some stuff is worse than average like cocoa and child slave labor or meat/eggs/dairy and cruelty death for animals but overall unless there's really visible evidence showing a product was produced ethically (or more ethically), then it probably wasn't. After all, if the business selling the item could brag about it, they would.

Letting them know what mankind is all about seems like a terrible idea. We're jerks.

This is great. Although...

when you see something that sucks, you know exactly how to fix it.

I wish! "Fix" is wayyyy too optimistic.But maybe, just maybe, I could make it suck a tiny bit less. Still left with utter garbage, of course. Okay, well didn't you just say you could make it suck a tiny bit less? So do it again. And again, and...

And it jumped on the man and scratched him all to pieces!

I do like a happy ending. The jerk had it coming. Hopefully the dogs were okay though.

Could a feeling or emotion be more fascinating than fascination?

I have a 16 gallon shopvac I bought... about 15 years ago, maybe more. Honestly, I think that's the way to go. They can handle wet, dry stuff, huge capacity, really powerful, simple system. Not even expensive compared to normal vacuums.

If you have a husky/husky mix, good luck with bags. You will need about 1 billion per year.

One would hope that IBM’s selling a product that has a higher success rate than a coinflip

Again, my point really doesn't have anything to do with specific percentages. The point is that if some percentage of it is broken you aren't going to know exactly which parts. Sure, some problems might be obvious but some might be very rare edge cases.

If 99% of my program works, the remaining 1% might be enough to not only make the program useless but actively harmful.

Evaluating which parts are broken is also not easy. I mean, if there was already someone who understood the whole system intimately and was an expert then you wouldn't really need to rely on AI to port it.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's impossible, or necessary not going to be worth it. Just that it is not an easy thing to make successful as an overall benefit. Also, issues like "some 1 in 100,000 edge case didn't get handle successfully" are very hard to quantify since you don't really know about those problems in advance, they aren't apparent, the effects can be subtle and occur much later.

Kind of like burning petroleum. Free energy, sounds great! Just as long as you don't count all side effects of extracting, refining and burning it.

So you might feed it your COBOL code and find it only coverts 40%.

I'm afraid you're completely missing my point.

The system gives you a recommendation: that has a 50% chance of being correct.

Let's say the system recommends converting 40% of the code base.

The system converts 40% of the code base. 50% of the converted result is correct.

50% is a random number picked out of thin air. The point is that what you end up with has a good chance of being incorrect and all the problems I mentioned originally apply.

I was speaking generally. In other words, the LLM will convert 100% of what you tell it to but only part of the result will be correct. That's the problem.