Its a shit article with Tech crunch changing the words to get people in a flap about AI (for or against), the actual quote is
"I'd say maybe 20 percent, 30 percent of the code that is inside of our repos today and some of our projects are probably all written by software"
"Written by software" reasonably included machine refactored code, automatically generated boilerplate and things generated by AI assistants. Through that lens 20% doesnt seem crazy.
Git is, but it has no process of discovery or hosting by itself. Those are needed to efficiently share open source software to large numbers of people.
You do understand that Ukraine regularly hits Moscow and has even hit the Kremlin?
With drones. A balistic missile strike is different from a nuclear missile strike only in the warhead in the missile. Firing missiles that could potentially be nukes (from the Russian perspective) from a nucelar power (the USA) at their capital is one of the few things that might actually trigger a nuclear war. Not the idiotic Russia bluster about Ukraine being given access to slightly better weapons, but a genuine possibility.
I agree, there are two consistent points of view with regards to conciousness IMO: either it is an emergent property of systems regardless of what they are made of, so there is no reasons machines couldnt be concious even if none now are; or that conciousness is a supernatural quantity that isnt a property of mater and energy that can be studied by science.
I dissagree with the later but it is far more consistent than people who claim to be materialist but insist there is something magicial about the matter in brains that can not be replicated by other forms of matter.
Not really, the politicians with a Trumpian style (Johnson and Truss) came after brexit and got there because of the polarisation caused by brexit (and had the example of Trump himself). There was definitely a lot of lying and false claims that were used by the leave campaign in order to get brexit and it shared some similarities with Trump, but it wasnt politics in the the style of being completely divorced from reality and overwhelming incompetance that defines Trump.
10% to 80% seems like too wide a range for your range of "how many are on the largest instance" 10% means only 1 in ten users are on the largest instance and 9/10 are spread out on the rest, If anything that seems overly fragmented. On the other end 80% means 4/5 users are on the largest instance and 1/5 are shared between all other instances which is incredibly concentrated.
I'd sugest narrowing the range to 20% to 66%, 1 in 5 on the largest instance is still plenty dispersed to ensure that there is competition/variety and 2 in 3 users on the largest instance is already well into monopoly territory.
If we tell people in as many numbers to coffee a pro EU party as we tell people about tactical voting then I bet the electoral calculus would be a lot different.
I honestly cant parse that sentence. For most people whether or not we join the EU is not the be all and end all of how they vote, and for large parts of England in particular +80% of the voters choose Labour or the Tories. In one of those places trying to persuade people that they should vote for a candidate who clearly doesnt have a chance based on your hobby horse issue isnt going to get very far.
Rather than that it would be far better to put your efforts into voting reform so that small parties with diffuse support actually get the representation they should. Which practically means pushing Labour towards accepting it, and trying to get parliament in a position where Labour need Lib Dem MPs to form a government.
How does allowing the Tories (who are almost entirely against joining the EU) to win a seat instead over Labour (who are terrified to being painted as wanting to rejoin, but who's members and voters are strongly in favour) help us rejoin?
If you live in a seat where the LDs or Greens have a chance by all means vote for them, but for a very large number of seats the next winner will be one of the Tories or Labour and refusing to engage with that is equivalent to not bothering to turn up.
Even if it were true (which I'm pretty sure it isnt) so what? The whole benefit of free software is people can fork it and make their own version if they dont like where it is headded.
Empty sequences being false goes back a lot further than perl, it was already a thing in the first lisp (in fact the empty list was the cannonical false).
We also didnt understand how the internet would change the world, still went ahead with it. We didnt understand how computers would change the world, still went ahead with it, we didnt understand how the steam engine would change the world... etc etc.
No one can know how a new invention will change things, but you are not going to be able to crush human's innate creativity and drive to try new things. Sometimes those things are going to be a net negative and that's bad, but the alternative is to insist nothing new is tried and thats A bad and B not possible.
People being economically displaced from innovation increasing productivity is good provided it happens at a reasonable pace and there is a sufficient social safety net to get those people back on their feet. Unfortunately those safety nets dont exist everywhere and have been under attack (in the west) for the past 40 years.
I don't think that's really a fair comparison, babies exist with images and sounds for over a year before they begin to learn language, so it would make sense that they begin to understand the world in non-linguistic terms and then apply language to that. LLMs only exist in relation to language so couldnt understand a concept separately to language, it would be like asking a person to conceptualise radio waves prior to having heard about them.
Probably, given that LLMs only exist in the domain of language, still interesting that they seem to have a "conceptual" systems that is commonly shared between languages.
So the reason that the LDs in Wales aren't doing better is they don't support a cause that the majority are against and only has the consistent support of about 1 in 4 people? Makes sense.