because LLMS are like drunk geniuses, without the rigor of lean they would drift into nonsense. Similar in chess they have 1700 ELO now but still some percent of their moves are illegal.
Exactly. I once had the theory that crocodiles in the Arctic and glaciers in the Sahara were just the effect of the axis tumbling, but then Claude confidently educated me that, thanks to some explicit calculations by Einstein(!), it's not possible for a spinning ball to tumble that much.
I'd rather have a mechanism to remove the 100 GB of old simulator images for Apple Watch and TVOS, which I never use and which can't be uninstalled without disabling security and rebooting to safe mode all the time.
In Xcode, go to Window > Devices and Simulators in the menu bar (or press Shift+Cmd+2), then select the Simulators tab in the sidebar to open the list of simulators. Here you can select and delete simulators.
That's one way to twist it. What I'm intending to say is that you offload tedious bullshit to AI agents so you can focus on stuff you enjoy and live your life. And for people that like doing things like changing xcode settings (more than time with their kids) there is nobody stopping them from doing that.
People should really know how to delete sims, but there's a ton of obscure Xcode nonsense that in the "old days" people would blindly trust Stackoverflow answers or even blogs to fix. If Xcode is a tractor, it's the old thing you whack with a wrench and say "come on Bessie" to make it temporarily work again, not something most devs really understand.
`xcrun simctl delete unavailable` will delete unavailable simulators. `xcrun simctl list` and `xcrun simctl delete ` will delete specific devices. I run unavailable all the time after updating to get disk space back.
`xcrun simctl runtime list` and `xcrun simctl runtime delete ` will clean up actual runtimes.
For me once it redownloaded and the next time xcode just refused to work and didn't even redownload. So it seems it has changed (or for me). The problem is, with Apple you don't even know it was done hostilely or it was just their, now well-establisehd, software incompetence. Because in their case both are aplenty.
their stable income is eaten away by the quickly rising income of the labs, they will be out of the race once the labs reach a certain threshold of income, rather sooner than later. Unless many people install Google surveillance anti-gravity thing on their system which I doubt
I'm aware of Article 17 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China https://english.court.gov.cn/2016-04/14/c_761425_2.htm "The grass-root organizations of the Communist Party of China in companies shall carry out their activities in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China." but not any rule requiring them to be in leadership positions specifically. Maybe you could point me to it?
Even if there's a party member at the C-level of some company making day-to-day business decisions, that doesn't necessarily mean they're carrying out detailed instructions from higher-ups in the party as opposed to following their own best judgment. The CCP generally doesn't micro-manage everything, but operates more in a "mission tactics"-like way, where the top level gives out a broad goal that gets condensed down into a slogan like "new productive forces," and interpreting and elaborating on the details is left to lower levels who seek to align their initiatives with the top-level goals (e.g. by describing AI as a "new productive force") and initiatives that appear successful will get blessed as official policy.
That different companies follow different strategies when it comes to model releases is clear evidence that there is no unified party line on this question yet.
reply