“what it does” describes the actions taken - cancer wards work to treat cancer (which is their purpose). Outcomes of what they do isn’t relevant to the point.
The purpose of most social media companies is to manipulate people for financial and political gain which is what they do.
I think that "manipulate people for financial and political gain" is an outcome of what social media companies actually do - I was under the belief that in a general sense, they want to maximise the time people spend on their apps so that they can sell this attention to advertisers, independent of whether or not a given ad buyer wants to manipulate people.
> they want to maximise the time people spend on their apps so that they can sell this attention to advertisers
This is where they manipulate in my mind. They maximize that time by exploiting human psychology, manipulating people into scrolling their feeds endlessly eh?
This should go without saying but unfortunately it really doesn't these days:
This kind of corporate behavior is bad and will end up hurting somebody. If we're lucky the fallout will only hurt Nvidia. More likely it will end up hurting most taxpayers.
I'm not actually sure how hard landing is. Most airports that support autonomous landings do it by having ILS antennae that guide the airplane to within tens of feet of the runway, at which point the airplane switches to radar for altitude.
Automatic landings started in 1964. I think that it seems hard mostly because of how tightly regulated aviation is - modern technology could probably make things a lot better if people were more receptive to the idea of heavy automated aircraft over populated areas.
landing is easy. the hard part is landing with 20mph cross winds and one engine out (or other mechanical failures). we've had auto-land that is 99% reliable for a while now, but you need to get to 6 9s before you have a system safe enough to replace pilots
I think that as long as the autopilot is able to fly in a crosswind or with an engine failure, it can probably land with one. Autopilots are already able to do these things.
I doubt anyone has tested this in depth, but I'm not sure there are too many configurations of airplane these days where a human can safely land it and a computer can't. Maybe if a big chunk of wing or control surfaces were totally gone, but even a human pilot isn't getting 99% reliability in a situation like that.
In any case, I don't think that the first candidates for automation are gonna be passenger flights. It will probably be small cargo planes first - Cessna Caravans and other turboprop aircraft where the cost of paying pilots is roughly similar to the price of fuel.
Array languages don't just have shorter tokens, they have fewer of them. A small token set is practical because your language's users can only keep a finite number of things in their working memory.
This constraint leads to symbol overloading. But careless, rampant overloading results in the same problem - too many things to remember. So you have to constrain your overloads.
With these constraints, if you want to design a practical, usable, general-purpose language (without forcing users to define every useful thing themselves), you have to choose composable abstractions. Prioritizing a single data structure (arrays) lets you focus your design effort and historically has good mechanical sympathy with the available computers, but there could just as easily be an "APL, but for associative maps" type language.
My point is "good terseness" comes from a holistic design approach, and simply making a bad language more terse will makes its flaws more obvious.
I ended up with Emacs and org-mode. One of my friends used Vim and Pandoc to the same effect. I didn't quite have to write my own tool but each new LaTeX template foisted on me was hours of work that could have been spent doing research. My impression after seeing my peers work with Mendeley, Notion, Overleaf, etc. was they looked prettier at first glance but didn't solve my problem.
Over time I developed the opinion that LaTeX is an unnecessary tax on scientific progress. It's insanity to keep using it when HTML exists.
Just curious what field you are in? I've noticed that in latex and "latex alternative" discussions the problem of journal templates/styles often comes up. However, every journal I've submitted to (dozens of different ones (with lots of rejects!)) just require vanilla latex and the editorial office does the work of getting it into their format. Clearly this isn't the case for everyone though!
I completely disagree and think that the missing focus on LaTeX in Monsterwriter turns it into a very different class of product than Overleaf and Setzer.
