There may be a need for additional information, there just isn’t any in these responses. Using a basic JSON schema like the Problem Details RFC provides a standard way to add that information if necessary. Error codes are also often too general to have an application specific meaning. For example, is a “400 bad request” response caused by a malformed payload, a syntactically valid but semantically invalid payload, or what? Hence you put some data in the response body.
This should be done with font ligatures, not replacing character combinations with other characters that can’t be typed normally
No, it isn’t
You’re making assumptions about the control flow in a hypothetical piece of code…
What you’re saying is “descriptive method names aren’t a substitute for knowing how the code works.” That’s once again just a basic fact. It’s not “hiding,” it’s “organization.” Organization makes it easier to take a high level view of the code, it doesn’t preclude you from digging in at a lower level.
No, your argument is equally applicable to all methods. The idea that a method hides implementation details is not a real criticism, it’s just a basic fact.
No, not “almost every modern developer thinks inheritance is just bad.” They recognize that “prefer composition over inheritance” has merit. That doesn’t mean inheritance is itself a bad thing, just a situational one. The .NET and Java ecosystems are built out of largely object-oriented designs.
You realize this is just an argument against methods?
It’s possible to have an equiangular quadrilateral, i.e. whose sides are geodesics (the analogue of “straight line” on a sphere). The Gauss-Bonnet theorem implies their total interior angle is greater than 2pi, so four right angles can’t work.
Here’s an interactive demo of quadrilaterals on the sphere: https://geogebra.org/m/q83rUj8r
Notice that each side is a segment of a great circle, i.e. a circle that divides the sphere in half. That’s what it means for a path to be a geodesic on the sphere.
Good point. Four equal angles, then, although they will each have to be greater than 90 degrees.
This has nothing to do with Windows or Linux. Crowdstrike has in fact broken Linux installs in a fairly similar way before.
Sure, throw people in jail who haven’t committed a crime, that’ll fix all kinds of systemic issues
Catch and then what? Return to what?
It sounds like you don’t understand the complexity of the game. Despite being finite, the number of possible games is extremely large.
Bitcoin is more widely seen as a vehicle for speculation rather than a decentralized currency. Unlucky.
U good?
Your first two paragraphs seem to rail against a philosophical conclusion made by the authors by virtue of carrying out the Turing test. Something like “this is evidence of machine consciousness” for example. I don’t really get the impression that any such claim was made, or that more education in epistemology would have changed anything.
In a world where GPT4 exists, the question of whether one person can be fooled by one chatbot in one conversation is long since uninteresting. The question of whether specific models can achieve statistically significant success is maybe a bit more compelling, not because it’s some kind of breakthrough but because it makes a generalized claim.
Re: your edit, Turing explicitly puts forth the imitation game scenario as a practicable proxy for the question of machine intelligence, “can machines think?”. He directly argues that this scenario is indeed a reasonable proxy for that question. His argument, as he admits, is not a strongly held conviction or rigorous argument, but “recitations tending to produce belief,” insofar as they are hard to rebut, or their rebuttals tend to be flawed. The whole paper was to poke at the apparent differences between (a futuristic) machine intelligence and human intelligence. In this way, the Turing test is indeed a measure of intelligence. It’s not to say that a machine passing the test is somehow in possession of a human-like mind or has reached a significant milestone of intelligence.
I don’t think the methodology is the issue with this one. 500 people can absolutely be a legitimate sample size. Under basic assumptions about the sample being representative and the effect size being sufficiently large you do not need more than a couple hundred participants to make statistically significant observations. 54% being close to 50% doesn’t mean the result is inconclusive. With an ideal sample it means people couldn’t reliably differentiate the human from the bot, which is presumably what the researchers believed is of interest.
Status 200 for errors is common for non-REST HTTP APIs. An application error isn’t an HTTP error, the request and response were both handled successfully.