The point is that he may not using AI in any shape or form, Regardless, AI scrapes its work without explicit consent and then spits it back in "polished" soul free form.
Been there done that. At least for life science / health publications. The article is spot on.
Not sure if there is value of that approach in other more rigorous fields but in health for sure it does. The knowledge in health science is generally fragmented and a way to connect islands of knowledge has the potential to unlock a lot of value.
If you would like to see how this article ideas are applied in a playful manner in a web application you can visit: https://www.biovista.com/vizit/
That's why they're called generic parameters, not template parameters; the code is generic over all possible parameters, not templated for every possible parameter.
I was a C++ programmer for many years, but I never heard this claim. I asked Google AI and it disagees.
> does c++ have reified generics?
> C++ templates do not provide reified generics in the same sense as languages like C# or Java (to a limited extent). Reified generics mean that the type information of generic parameters is available and accessible at runtime.
Interesting I’d never picked up on this pedantic subtlety. I too thought reified meant what you could do at the call site not what you could do at runtime. Was my understanding wrong, or is Gemini hallucinating.
In any event, you have to use weird (I think “unsafe”) reflection tricks to get the type info back at runtime in Java. To the point where it makes you think it’s not supported by the language design but rather a clever accident that someone figured out how to abuse.
With that level of nit picking everything is off and there is no OS / DE with zero inconsistencies.
KDE is good for me. I admit that I simplify the interface in a new setup turning off some things but the fact that it gives me that capability is a huge plus for me.
> With that level of nit picking everything is off and there is no OS / DE with zero inconsistencies.
It isn't nitpicking. Those are like quite noticeable and actually quite bad. By the looks of it, a lot of this has been addressed now. But tbh it shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Of course there isn't any OS/DE with inconsistencies the fact that I spot that within like literally a few seconds on such a basic screenshot is indicative of other issues.
Even if it was nitpicking, to create something of high quality you should be extremely critical of your own work. That is how you actually make improvements.
> KDE is good for me. I admit that I simplify the interface in a new setup turning off some things but the fact that it gives me that capability is a huge plus for me.
Things shouldn't need a bunch of changes out of the box for them to be okay. I find that KDE (and have always had this impression since KDE 2 or 3) is it feels they bung a bunch of features in as a checklist. That doesn't create a good interface.
Unfortunately people will defend it. I am not sure why.
reply