sanitation@lemmy.today to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 21 hours agoNew compression techniquelemmy.todayimagemessage-square149linkfedilinkarrow-up11.06Karrow-down116file-text
arrow-up11.04Karrow-down1imageNew compression techniquelemmy.todaysanitation@lemmy.today to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 21 hours agomessage-square149linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squarehirihit640@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·11 hours agoBut they could probably get 90% the way there with just DNA. I think that was the point.
minus-squarelad@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 hours agoMaybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details
minus-squareonlinepersona@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·8 hours agoNo, they couldn’t, that’s what’s being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results.
minus-squareSusaga@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·11 hours agoThey said “perfectly”, not “90%”. You’re trying to move the goalposts.
But they could probably get 90% the way there with just DNA. I think that was the point.
Maybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details
No, they couldn’t, that’s what’s being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results.
They said “perfectly”, not “90%”. You’re trying to move the goalposts.