This is trickier than it initially seems. Using preprocessor directives to include or exclude swaths of code is a very common thing, and implementing a compiler error as you described would break the building of countless C codebases.
Assuming that the person that did this has not tried that. If you look at the setup photos, the grape is resting on a couple of nails. This suggests that many different things have been tried.
The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) that organises Eurovision covers a larger range than just Europe. In theory, there's a bunch of Levantine and North African countries that could also take part (Morocco turned up in 1980, and Lebanon in 2005).
The more interesting question is why Australia is there, and that's because they were super fans who turned up as a one off in 2016. People liked having them around so they're permanent fixtures now
The whole of the Mediterranean north african countries would join if it was simply about the EBU. The answer is - as described in the article that I linked - that Israel is using Eurovision as a propaganda machine.
I think sometimes the distinction is made between natural and artificial (human made) as a way to sway an argument. In many of these cases, the reasoning is tenuous if we examine with an understanding that the difference is sometimes arbitrary.
If anything, we should be more careful with our use of language. For instance; 'naturally ocurring' vs. 'human made'.
A similar one is synthetic. We've used that label for things like synthetic oil, but there are a lot of other things that are synthesized because it is too difficult to get the material naturally.
> We did in fact need this to get AI to recognise cats.
I believe that this is simply because of the way we train ML, with labelled data. It is quite conceivable that we could get an ML model to recognise cats just by some form of multidimensional clustering of training data.
I wish I'd phrased it better, my point was more that early vision systems had weird issues, which we were able to figure out by looking at what part of the image those models paid attention to and realising it often wasn't even part of the animal in the photo, but e.g. the plants around them. We literally had to think about what made a cat a cat to make AI good at recognising cats.
This would also impact clustering.
That said, I think even for humans there's a similar issue: we spent millennia clustering things into groups and labelling those groups, which is why the Catholic church had rules about no meat on Good Friday but fish was fine and beavers counted as fish (and there is now a podcast titled around the idea there is no such thing as a fish*). For cats, I don't see it myself but the fossa is described as "cat-like".
the quote from the article is just a contrived tautology that misunderstands the nature of the problem. the dualism problem is not about finding an explanation for why what we call a cat is what we call a cat. it's that you can measure anything you want but nevertheless despite confidently establishing the size of a cat, the appearance of a cat, the behavior of cats, a sophisticated taxonomy of related species labeled "felines", surveying people to find out what cats are to them, what a cat is to me is not what a cat is to you
I'm not particularly well-versed in philosophy, but what's the dualism here?
Of course what a cat _is_ to me is not what a cat _is_ to you, because we necessarily have different memories of interactions with cat-like beings. If you show some babies a cat for the first time, they'll necessarily see it from different viewing perspectives. Even if you put VR glasses on them and show the exact same video, they'll have different contexts: "I first saw a cat when I was sitting next to my friend", "I first saw a cat when I was thinking of ice cream", etc.
But they all saw the same cat, they'll see many other cats, who are all similar. So everyone will understand that "things like these are cats", but everyone will have their own understanding of a "cat" because their memory is different.
I don't have the energy at present to fully develop my thoughts but one thing I'll say is that in my view they did *not* see the same cat. It was the same collection of flesh & bone on four legs, certainly. But it is not the same cat.
Heidegger best revealed to me the limitations of supposedly "objective" thinking.
Heraclitus: "No man steps in the same river twice"
For what it's worth, wikipedia says that it is Isthmian script, and has not been conclusively determined whether Isthmian script is a true writing system that represents a spoken language, or is a system of proto-writing
reply