“It’s not that hard”

The rockets are fine. SpaceX has a team specifically designed to distract Musk and keep him away from the actual work on the rockets. Tesla didn't have that though. That's how we ended up with that lame presentation with the weird "S3XY" acromin. That was really the point I realized that he was just an idiot frat boy with too much money. He really is his own worst enemy.

Maybe I'm out of the loop - what's he been saying about software?

Does it rhyme with “vaseline”?

If reacting to something always makes it more likely to occur, you have just made reacting to things Elon Musk says more likely to occur.

why would you not want it to? what circumstance, other than an integer not given an explicit type, could it guess wrong?

Most of my code is untyped. First I type it, then I realize it's all wrong and use backspace to untype it.

Assembly probably? So low level you kinda just play with bits. That's all I can think of for an untyped language. Everything else I'm aware of is dynamically or statically typed

I guess "untyped" could mean "weakly typed", like how shell and DOS batch are, where everything is a string until you say "hey I want to do math on this" at which point the interpreter turns it into a number, does math on the number, and then turns it back into a string before saving it back to the variable

Well that would depend on the definition and what you exactly mean by untyped.

The untyped part is usually referring to the way the programmer interacts with the language, for example not setting a type for variables and parameters. But then there is the question of is the programmer ever allowed to explicitly set the type. And further more, if the programmer explicitly set the type, does this mean the type can't change at a later point? And another question could be, can the programmer check or enforce what type a variable or parameter is? And the question, if there is only one type of data in the language, would that be a typed or untyped language? But I would consider these to be details and all fall under the untyped umbrella, with untyped just meaning not-typed.

Then there's the question of the technical implementation of the language. Defining a language is one thing, actually having it run on a real system is another. Usually technical systems at some point require explicit types. Something somewhere needs instructions on how to handle the data and this usually leads to some kind of typing instructions being added along with the data. But depending on how many abstraction layers there are, this can soon become a very pedantic discussion. I feel what matters is the design, definition and intend of a language. The actual technical implementation isn't what matters in my opinion.

I feel like there are so many programming languages and technical systems at this point, every variation and exception exists. And if you can think of one that doesn't exist, expect a follow up comment of somebody pointing out it does exist after all, or them having started a project to make it exist in the near future.

VBA you can declare everything as variant.

Is that untyped?

Most statically typed languages can't because they don't implement Hindley-Milner type inference.

assembly

Depends on the language. There is no explicit typing in JavaScript, for example. That's why Typescript was invented.

Not always.

Programming term. Variables in programming languages can hold different types of data, such as whole numbers, floating point numbers or strings of characters ("text"). Untyped languages figure out on the fly what can and cannot be done to the content of a variable, while typed languages strictly keep track of the type of content (not the value) to catch bugs and improve performance, for example.

By typed they mean declairing a type for your variables.

In some languages, variables needs to be told what kind of data they can hold. That's it's type. For instance a number without decimals would be an integer type. While text might be a string type or a list of character types.

Other languages don't require types and sometimes don't even support them. They will just infer the type from the data that's in the variable.

If you see Elon Musk please explain this to him.

Might be able to call assembly untyped. Everything beyond that I think would be called either statically or dynamically typed, maybe weakly typed?

It's actually hieroglyphics.

Fuck me, that's good. I noticed the X after my first laugh attack and had a second one. Fuck you dude, my ribs hurt.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

he really was doing cool things.

He was buying cool things

I think the problem was he started to believe his own hype that he was a super-genius that knew everything about everything.

I mean I don't know the nitty gritty details of building an electric car or building rockets. But neither does Elon Musk. Which would be fine except that he tries to talk about these things like he does understand all of the details. Nobody knows everything about everything, it's only an idiot that tries to act like he does.

But then he tries talking like he's an expert in a field I am familiar with and it's like... there's points people could make on this subject, but that's not one of them.

I accept and believe your apology. Just pop yourself in the nose once, and we're totally square buddy.

If it's a Netflix adaptation, then wouldn't it be an overly drawn out true crime documentary?

I think you mean The Asylum version of Tony Stark.

Which line?

4D chess isn't real. Sometimes, rich and powerful people do dumb things. Sometimes they're not very smart and have a visible personality disorder. Searching for an underlying clever motive is an exercise in your intelligence - not theirs.

He's not hurting the people who made him buy it.

If he really wanted to be rid of it he could have instead done nothing. Put someone in charge with the impossible task of "make this profitable in 5 years" and then shut it down after 5 years because "it's not profitable".

Showing his ass to the world and ruining future potential for investment by looking like an incompetent idiot is not a "secretly intelligent move".

What? The people who made him buy it got paid already. I'm sure they're laughing every time they see it drop in value.

You underestimate his incompetence

Clearly this man has never read

There's some evidence that he read Atlas Shrugged, which is about a poor executive who "suffers" under increasing government regulation. It's like a bible for CEOs

Who are you quoting?

By definition you can't be normal if you're neurodivergent...

Yesh kinda weird how ok a lot of the users here are with using the r-word slur.

Irrelevant question ahead->

I have read that Google is dumb and potentially malware carrying extensions sometimes slip through their security and onto the chrome store. Is it true and how does it apply to Firefox

whether or not a compiler can understand a type at compile time

In many / most(?) compiled languages that's because the type is specified at compile time. With interpreted languages that's often not the case, and in that case determining the type can be extremely hard.

A notebook and crayons? I think you'd just get back stick figure-esque drawings of cybertrucks with notes like "bulletproof" and "anti-gas attack".

Just like the poor Tesla design team.

He definitely wants a programming language where the array indicies start at 69 and end at 420.

Maybe he'll ask AI to make it for him.

Neat! To save others a search, "Post Production - Ground Control" turned up for my search.

Edit: If I ever worked on a Sega CD game, I would wear that as a badge of pride. It wasn't a good game system, but it was an interesting era in the history of gaming.

Don't forget defrauding the federal and state of California governments to get them to pull funding from vitally needed high-speed rail projects because it would hurt Tesla's bottom line. Fucking hyperloop.

He wrote code that was so bad, all that was kept from x.com when it was bought was its name. The actual code was taken from another company acquired at the same time.

no it still doesn't because unless that ai will code in assembly (which you could argue is a statically typed programming language with just one type , but lets not be pedantic) , it will still use programming languages , which means it will still matter if a language something is made is statically or dynamically typed .

even with the assumption that AI will be able to efficiency code in assembly , lets entertain the exponential growth version of ai often shown in fiction , it will still not be worth for that super intelligence to write in assembly (except for what we humans would call fun or for small cases where its necessary like os headers etc) because a compiler will do it faster and likely good enough , especially as it will then be able to make a better compiler . it will also likely not want to spend time/focus to scan the assembly code which is another advantage to not writing in pure assembly .

making that statement requires a complete lack of understanding how programming works along with an over"optimistic" view on the future of ai nya