I guess now we finally know why Babbage never finished building the Analytical Engine.

  • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I mean, that’s a hyperbole. I think there’s more depth to this question from our point of view than just what’s on the surface.

    • Horsecook@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      No, not really. Calculators still don’t have autocorrect, because the concept is nonsense. With language, there are true and false combinations of letters. More probable, and less probable, combinations of words. Coffee is a word, covfefe is not. But a calculator cannot know that when you entered 2+2 you meant to enter 2+3, as both are valid inputs, and neither is more probable.

      • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Isn’t this just dependent on the level of abstraction? At the low level a CPU is just a calculator.

        Presumably the user has a way to enter these digits. If they’re using a touchscreen, then there’s plenty of algorithms being used to make sure the intended touch target is triggered, even if they touch something in between.

        There’s a lot of effort into making sure the user gets the intended result even if their input is fuzzy.