I don't mind rebasing a single commit, but I hate it when people rebase a list of commits, because that makes commits which never existed before, have probably never been tested, and generally never will be.

I've had failures while git bisecting, hitting commits that clearly never compiled, because I'm probably the first person to ever check them out.

I'd guess it's much less accurate than that.

Part of genetics is pattern matching, and last time I checked I still can't find a model that can correctly solve hard Sudokus (well, assuming you don't pick a coding model that writes a Sudoku solver.. maybe some of them are trying to do genetics by doing correct algorithms), a trivial job if you write a program that is designed to do it.

To be honest, just getting to the point where house prices don't rise above inflation, maybe even stay fixed (so inflation eats away at their value), would be a massive accomplishment. The main problem at the moment is prices keep rising above inflation in most places, year after year.

Why have shelves full of books that haven’t been borrowed in 15 years? what benefit is that providing?

I once borrowed a book, to find a previous borrowers receipt in it, placed as a bookmark. Upon inspection it turned out that the previous borrower was myself(!) (I recognized the library card number), about ten years earlier.

So probably, no one had borrowed it in the time between. I was very happy the book had not been thrown out.

You can find entertaining stuff there. My interests can be really niche. I remember once finding an amazing book in our college library from the sixties or seventies about the use of LSD in treating psychiatric disorders. While I didn't agree with all the suggestions in there, it was a fascinating time capsule (with colour illustrations, many of them by patients). With the microdosing debate, it's probably relevant again.

Yet when I took the book off the shelf it looked like no one had touched it in many years.

What you are saying is especially true for fiction, less so for nonfiction. Many nonfiction topics are important and require a large volume of materials to remain as reference. For example, you never know when it might be important to know how something was manufactured 50 years ago, or what happened in Congress 20 years ago, or what a newspaper reported a hundred years ago. This makes it really hard to judge which items could be culled. I'm inclined to agree that borrow rates are relevant but they are not the only thing that matters. The possibilities of digitization and interlibrary loan make culling less risky, but someone still has to decide to keep unpopular reference materials for them to remain available.

Almost every library regularly throws out books, and all librarians I know are happy with this. New books arrive regularly, and unless you plan on your library growing unlimited, you need to, in general, a 1 in 1 out policy.

You have to rely on implementation for anything to do with what happens to memory after it is freed, or really almost anything to do with actual bytes in RAM.

For a start, it tells you the engine can actually be used to make a full finished game — which with hobby game engines isn’t a guarantee. If you want me to use an engine, I’d like at least one finished game, preferably even released on Steam.

I agree, by this argument why teach any child 2+2? This has been performed perfectly by computers for years.

I can't be sure, but this sounds entirely possible to me.

There are many, many people, and websites, dedicated to roleplaying, and those people will often have conversations lasting thousands of messages with different characters. I know a people whose personal 'roleplay AI' budget is a $1,000/month, as they want the best quality AIs.

The world doesn’t consider it reasonable for businesses to sell beer to kids, and expect us all to constantly follow our kids around to make sure they don’t get beer. Bars don’t get to say ‘woops, we got thousands of 9 year olds drunk, their parents should keep an eye on them’”.

And at this point, most kids, most people, spend more time online than outside walking around

> Bars don’t get to say ‘woops, we got thousands of 9 year olds drunk, their parents should keep an eye on them’”.

Because there's no whatsoever downside in requiring bars to not serve children (if we assume that it's just to not give alcohol to children); online age checks instead have very big negative consequences for the whole populace.