arijun

They are saying that was a bad strategy and not the usual one. I have no idea to what extent that’s true.

For your link [1], many of those issues have been addressed with pandas 2.0 (which I believe Wes Mckinney [pandas' original author] contributed to). So it's a bit disingenuous to point to that post and say "See? Even Wes disowns it!"

That being said, if I were to start a new project requiring that kind of work today, I would probably try Polars first. Their greenfield implementation allowed them to get rid of many of the crusty edges of pandas.

Yeah I had to ask it to stop doing that as well && chaining commands that it could split. I got tired of having to manually give permissions all the time (or leaving it to churn, only to come back after a while to see it had asked for permissions very early into the task)

When you say personally responsible, do you mean legal repercussions? Because, yes, that is definitionally what the law is. Or do you mean some extra-judicial responsibility? Because GP (and this whole chain, for the most part) is only talking about law.

Why wouldn’t a strict keto diet not be a cure for those cancers?

I assume the goal isn't to generate Korean names but to learn GPTs.

But how many of those crashes not caused by inattention could have been avoided with less idiocy and more defensive driving? I mean, yes, we can’t see as well in fog, but that’s why you should slow down

> I've always wondered if Tesla's issues with FSD were a sensor problem or an intelligence problem

Even if it’s an intelligence problem, it’s possible that machine intelligence will not get to the point where it can resolve anytime soon, whereas more sensors might circumvent the issue completely. It’s like with Musk’s big claim (that humans use camera only to drive); the question is not if a good enough brain will be able to drive vision-only, but if Tesla can make that brain.

It’s probably a better indicator of a good business idea than if you get slapped in the face…

That seems like a really bad excuse to void responsibility. Consider a cigarette maker:

1. We sell cigarettes to make money

2. The more people crave cigarettes, the more money we can make

3. Should we make cigarettes less appealing to children? Absolutely not, we would make less money. Parents should just stop their kids from buying cigarettes.

Also, people in there last few decades have been using “duty to shareholders” as a way to excuse bad behavior, as if it’s a moral imperative higher than all others. I don’t really see why it would.

I think both you and the comment you're replying to agree with the gp.

I imagine insurance would be split in two in that case. Carmakers would not want to be liable for e.g. someone striking you in a hit-and-run.

Never say never—it’s not physically impossible. But yes, as it stands, it seems that Tesla will not be self driving any time soon (if ever).

> So you're not even sure what the problem is, but you're okay with banning it?

They are claiming that those students are under-qualified either way. They only don’t know if they are “gaming the system” or it’s just a regular failure of the system.

> A standardized English test doesn't seem too hard to administer

I’ve seen a lot of claims of rampant cheating in China. Perhaps gp who doesn’t seem to have a high opinion of Chinese students would worry about cheating in a standardized test?

What happens when they sell the car in a country that drives on the other side of the road? They would have to move everything around.

From the current top comment on this thread:

> It's made out of aluminum instead of steel. The resulting weight savings make it a bit more efficient. That's something this shipping yard specializes in.

According to that person, weight does indeed matter.

Why do Amazon and others pay out to Honey's affiliate accounts? They know no real referrals are coming from them.

I wouldn’t mind privacy-focused AI tools, either (as long as they don’t cram it in our faces). On its AI search assist, DDG has a button to open up a private session with GPT, which I use on occasion.

I wonder if it’s legal to modify the images to look more sinister. Otherwise, someone passing by might not read the text, making it free advertising for council/sherrif.

> But then he never answers that fundamental question

The fundamental question is “is it economically viable”, and the answer from his model is “not really”

> A constellation of 40,000 satellites with GPUs “infrastructure that makes it easier for humans to keep spreading out”?

I think he’s claiming industrializing larger and more economical power generation in space, as well as the means to put it up there, would make it easier to transition to a theoretical space economy

> But isn’t that precisely what everyone has been saying?

From the article, he claims that people handwave the economics, so at least the people he has interacted with haven’t been saying that.

Intellicode is being removed, not intellisense. Intellicode seems to have been a (free) version of copilot using local models.

Intellisense, which is an “on-device (non-AI) code indexer and suggestion system,” is still in place.

If it’s an AI bubble, it would be stupid to open new manufacturing capacity right now. Spend years and billions spinning up a new fab, only to have the bottom of the market drop out as soon as it comes online.

That article says the main benefit of rent control (besides popularity) is an increase in YIMBY sentiment, but it seems it still has the downsides detractors dislike about it.

It doesn't do much to convince me it isn't a populist campaign promise.

> Rent is a nonproductive component in the economy ... we should focus on productive components like building more houses

Through... rent?

"A lot of people are in meetings all day, and we would rather look at something that looks like we're there in person than at a limited webcam."

Why not both?

Every person has a limit of how much time and energy they can put into exercise. If they can go beyond that with a pill (with no other cost), why wouldn't you want everyone to take it?

Isn't that what power of attorney already is?

Oh yes all of you are right. In my defense, I am stupid.

Wait, wouldn't this result in the opposite of what you want? You want to shift the distribution out, not crowd the center, so you probably want to square your random instead.

Yes but usually you know which seats will be rear-facing.