Kogasa

The standard .NET C# compiler and CLI run on and build for Windows, MacOS, and Linux. You can run your ASP.NET webapps in a Linux docker container, or write console apps and run them on Linux, it doesn’t matter anymore. As a .NET dev I have literally no reason to ever touch Windows, unless I’m touching legacy code from before .NET Core or building a Windows-exclusive app using a Windows app framework.

It’s fully cross platform with .NET Core and later.

Start with the goal to create something, be it a console app, website, web api, or game. It’s hard to just study a language abstractly and learn it. Use the Microsoft Learn documentation as reference, and look for open source .NET projects on GitHub to get different perspectives on how to build things with .NET. There is a free course on freecodecamp that will get you started by building an app, and I believe it was done in partnership with Microsoft

SQLite is one of the best tested codebases in existence. Having only so many variables per line means nothing

Java is a fine choice. Much prefer it over pseudocode.

I have read programs a lot shorter than 500 lines which I don’t have the expertise to write.

I worked with Progress via an ERP that had been untouched and unsupported for almost 20 years. Damn easy to break stuff, more footguns than SQL somehow

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?

Still not enough, or at least pi is not known to have this property. You need the number to be “normal” (or a slightly weaker property) which turns out to be hard to prove about most numbers.

It sounds like you don’t understand the complexity of the game. Despite being finite, the number of possible games is extremely large.

Okay, but this makes more sense as an instance method rather than a static one

Instance properties are PascalCase.

Yeah, properties (like a field but with a getter and/or setter method, may or may not be backed by a field) are PascalCase

That’s an instance property

Yes, with Iosevka font

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.

https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238

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.