Yes because these descriptions are meant to foster dehumanization and detachment, which is very useful in military and scientific study contexts. That's why they also sound unnatural in casual conversation
A lot of mechanisation, especially in the modern world, is not deterministic and is not always 100% right; it's a fundamental "physics at scale" issue, not something new to LLMs. I think what happened when they first appeared was that people immediately clung to a superintelligence-type AI idea of what LLMs were supposed to do, then realised that's not what they are, then kept going and swung all the way over to "these things aren't good at anything really" or "if they only fix this ONE issue I have with them, they'll actually be useful"
After using Rust for many years now, I feel that a mutable global variable is the perfect example of a "you were so busy figuring out whether you could, you never stopped to consider whether you should".
Moving back to a language that does this kind of thing all the time now, it seems like insanity to me wrt safety in execution
Global mutable state is like a rite of passage for devs.
Novices start slapping global variables everywhere because it makes things easy and it works, until it doesn't and some behaviour breaks because... I don't even know what broke it.
On a smaller scale, mutable date handling libraries also provide some memorable WTF debugging moments until one learns (hopefully) that adding 10 days to a date should probably return a new date instance in most cases.
* old Toblerone Matterhorn logo unfortunately :( They've had to remove the mountain from branding since the chocolate is no longer produced in Switzerland. Still, I love finding the bear in the older boxes still floating around.
> no mental bandwidth for things like spiritual constipation
That's a feature, not a bug. Fighting for life has more meaning and purpose that yearning for death. We're designed for it. It has only recently become atypical.
You're conflating 2 issues here: judgement of adult attempts at a new language and the time required to learn it. The first is just a cultural thing, although it is sometimes valid for understanding a speaker (cases in Slavic languages, pronunciation in a homonym-heavy language like French, tones in Asian languages). Problem is that it's oftentimes more "cultural" than "valid" critique, which helps no one.
The second problem is more practical and it's not the only difference between child and adult speakers; the vocabulary required in most day-to-day settings for a child is considerably easier to master than the adult equivalent, regardless of language (describing symptoms to your doctor or getting through a bank or tax appointment will be much more difficult than describing the weather or what you want for lunch). Adults in general are just as good as children at learning new languages, it's just that life has different requirements from that age group.
Edit: that said, I actually am agreeing with your general sentiment
Sure some few adults can learn languages as fast as kids, but you completely missed my main points around gatekeeping that language skills always has on adults and less so on kids.
Because statements like the original I was replying to of "no time for gatekeeping" are simply not true, but more like the poster doesn't notice it because he (or his kids) are not affected by that gatekeeping.
> Sure some few adults can learn languages as fast as kids, but you completely missed my main points around gatekeeping that language skills always has on adults and less so on kids.
Adults in general are actually way faster at learning languages than kids if you control for time actually spent learning the language, but generally adults are required to fit language learning in around a full time job (and are also full of shame/embarrassment)
Can't concur. As a kid I learned foreign languages effortlessly, compared to now as an expat. And every other expat here my age shares the same experiences, where their 8 year old already speak the host country's language better than they do.
As another expat, I'd concur with him, with an asterisk. The thing is - your kids are surrounded by the language nonstop. Depending on your situation it may be spoken at school, certainly spoken by some of their friends, teachers, and so on endlessly. But "you" (speaking in generalities of expats and not necessarily literally you)? Unless you happen to have a local wife, then you probably speak it extremely rarely, there's a reasonable chance you can't even read it if it's non-latin, and there's no real need to move beyond that.
Living in one country for a rather long time, my fluency was basically non-existent beyond simple greetings, shopping/eating, and other basic necessities. By contrast somewhat recently I've taken a major interest in another language, one that's generally considered extremely difficult, and I've reached at least basic fluency in about 3 years. The difference? I immersed myself in the other language, my music playlist is overwhelmingly in that language, I've watched endless series and movies in that language, I've made efforts to read books in the other language, and any time I find another speaker I make sure to use the opportunity to talk with him in that language, and so on. If I was in a country where it was the native language, then I'd probably be near fluent by now.
I am not young, but I have never seen a major institution (including governments) caring about citizens in aggregate in my lifetime. To me, this is an artifact of the 50s or 60s, some bygone era (which is funny, because the government did not care about citizens in aggregate back then either).
I can only imagine how the younger kids see things. They're bombarded by public knowledge of nasty things institutions did in the bigoted/ignorant past, underhanded things they're definitely doing now, an anger/fear inducing news cycle and endless social media conspiracy theories (some of which end up being true) engineered for clicks. Extreme cynicism is a logical conclusion.
Precisely this. The idea of trusting that a news corporation (or any other corporation) cares about you is just utterly absurd in 2025. We all know now, and have for some time, that, factually, this is not how things work, and profit (or funding) has to come first, or the corporation does not survive. It isn't even cynicism, just a recognition of the economic realities of contemporary society.
This is just cynical brain poisoning. My health insurance company isn't a person who cares about me, but that was never the deal. Their interests are aligned with mine. I'm in a blue state and can get the covid vaccine for free despite the federal level fuckery. That is because my insurer cares about profit, which means they act on the science of it without the culture wars and demagoguery. They know I'll be net healthier with the vaccine, therefore more profitable to them.
> They know I'll be net healthier with the vaccine, therefore more profitable to them.
How do you square this with the fact that in the US the same profit-minded insurance company is limited to a fixed profit margin based on the amount of claims paid? By law, they need to set their rates such that they pay out at least 80% (or 85% for some markets) of the premiums they collect. Practically the only way for them to make more money in the long term is to pay out more in the short term.
Personally, I'm not sure how to answer this question. Over time, insurance companies benefit more when medical costs for their customers are higher, not when they are lower. Maybe it's that they actually think that keeping you alive and paying premiums longer is better for their bottom line than having you die quickly? But I don't think it's as simple as thinking that they benefit more if you don't get sick.
There is no cynicism or brain poisoning here, health insurance is in no way comparable to news. The economic incentives for news media putting the truth first are simply not there. They can't tell blatant, obvious lies too often, yes, or they will lose trust and thus profit, but nothing really prevents them from lying by omission, and if, e.g., fear mongering, clickbait, and pandering leads to more profits, this is where they must and will go.
If people demanded truth, we might see a different story, but it is clear that enough people want other things more, often enough.
I think this is a primary reason why there is no real "cheatsheet" for this stuff. The application of a given algo (and even what types of inputs you provide) are heavily dependent on the detailed specifics of your use case and how you apply them
Yeah correct, the French relationship with modern English is much closer because of (among other reasons) the Norman conquest that happened long after the Indo-European split and much closer to our time
