brigadier132

> its usually always for legacy

Legacy is the dumbest reason to work and does not explain the motivation of the vast majority of people that are wealthy.

edit: The vast majority of people with more than $10million are completely unknown so the idea that they care about legacy is stupid.

For someone so in touch with what studies say you seem to have a very inaccurate view of the political leanings of academics

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYOm6ciXcAAZ0vl?format=jpg&name=...

You see, all the fake fields of studies are field with leftists. And sure, you might say democrats aren't leftists, which is what every dumbass marxist says.

It's a dog whistle. There are no studies on this, why would academia (which for the field that would study this is 100% composed of leftists) have a study on leftist dog whistles?

Also, putting any value on "studies" when they almost universally fail to replicate outside of hard sciences is dumb.

Yes, they are always using the second definition.

Economic transactions only happen if there is a mutual benefit. Typically one side of the transaction has more market power than the other and captures more of the surplus but the transaction doesn't happen if one side is worse off from it.

The entire idea of economic transactions being exploitative is literal Marxist propaganda. If you read the word "exploit" in some news article and it's referring to economic transactions, you are reading propaganda.

It's definitely copyright infringement. Also it's hilarious that the owner of this repo is advocating for DRM. When someone uses the word "exploit" to describe commercial transactions you just know they have room temperature IQ.

You can test it by comparing human translations with LLM translations. The results are pretty close. Like I said in another comment, the common failure mode with mandarin is around names and genders

> Most people have no need for translation software

Most people benefit from translation software indirectly. Every localized app / translated tv shows / etc.

My point with regards to 2 is that it would have to maintain consistency across translation runs. Entire novels don't fit in the context so it can't make up a logically consistent novel across prompts.

When I do the translations, I actually don't even include previous chapters in the context.

We have some people that read Mandarin and double check the output once in a while. If it didn't work well the story would quickly become incoherent and make no logical sense because chapters are translated on their own.

The common failure mode is names and genders, for some reason it likes to swap names and genders of characters.

The novels I like the most right now are "Mysteries of the Immortal Puppet Master" and "Eternal tale" which are both just fun Chinese fantasy novels.

> What brought about the interest?

They are very unique coming from the perspective of an American that has mostly read books published by Western authors. There are all these unique fantasy tropes based on Chinese history that are like a parallel branch to Tolkein based fantasy. Also, you can clearly see that they have completely different value systems and ironically you can tell they are comparatively less censored.

> Nobody thinks GPT4-o1 or Sonnet 3.5 is going to change the world

They already have, people don't realize it because expectations have shifted so much because of how transformative it already is.

I'm in a few communities that like to read novels from China / Korea. Claude Sonnet translates Mandarin to English almost perfectly.

I also copy and paste screenshots of Mandarin into it and it transcribes it perfectly too.

A universal language translator of this quality on its own would have been a billion dollar company a year before LLMs were released.

SQL is good, writing SQL using strings is not good.

> SeaORM is not typesafe, by design

What is your definition of typesafe here? With SeaOrm structs are created directly from the db schema with codegen. This is vastly superior to using strings and checking them at build time.

Just up front, it seems like you think I don't know about how all of these things are implemented.

I do.

So when you say SeaORM has Sqlx as a dependency. I know that. If the purpose of that statement was to say seaorm compile times can't be faster that sqlx because sqlx is a dependency of seaorm, that thought is wrong.

Using SeaORM the way it is intended to be used results in code that is much faster to compile than sqlx being used the way it's intended to be used.

Like I said in another comment, I'm pointing out what is going to actually happen based on incentives, not what I want to happen. I'd much rather the open web continue to exist and I think AI will be a beneficial thing for humanity.

edit: to be clear, it's already happening. Blogs are moving to substack, twitter blocks crawling, reddit is going the same way in blocking all crawlers except google.

It's pretty easy to see how cloudflare arrived in a situation where they are in a position to create this sort of marketplace without resorting to conspiracies about them trying to take over the internet.

They solved the very real problem of DDOS which consequently put them in a position to be a middleman between internet traffic between consumers and producers. Now they are expanding their business to take advantage of this privileged position they have.

> This time, Cloudflare has formed a "marketplace" for the abuse from which they're protecting you, partnering with the abusers.

When the original comment has a statement like this, it's a clear sign there is no potential for constructive discussion. Their understanding of markets has to be completely warped if they think a market existing constitutes partnering with one side of the exchange.

Ok, fine, let's restrict it to AI agents only, without training. It's still an adversarial relationship with the content creator. When you take an AI agent an ask it "find me the best italian restaurant in city xyz" it scans all the restaurant review sites and gives you back a recommendation. The content creator bears all the burden of creating and hosting the content and reaps non of the reward as the AI agent has now inserted itself as a middleman.

The above is also a much clearer / more obvious case of copyright infringement than AI training.

> AI agent access cannot be banned without fundamentally breaking the User Agent model of the web.

This is a non-sequitur but yes you are right, everything in the future will be behind a login screen and search engines will die.

You don't need to be a cynic if you have a grasp on reality If your truly understand something you are capable of evaluating it on a case by case basis without resorting to pathos.

For traditional search indexing the interests of the aggregator and the content creator were aligned. AIs on the other hand are adversarial to the interest of content creators, a sufficiently advanced AI can replace the creator of the content it was trained on.

I don't think sqlx is worth the compile time hit at all. Just use seaorm. Writing SQL queries using strings sucks.

That has nothing to do with letting go staff and everything to do with the owner.

Exactly once delivery is when a message is delivered to any computer at any layer of abstraction exactly once.

It doesn't matter if TCP abstracts or any other layer abstracts this away, if a message can be delivered more than once it does not have the property of exactly once delivery.

You might disagree with this definition but you would be wrong. There is negative value in redefining exactly once delivery to mean what you think it means.

I don't want to get into a debate over semantics with you. You've redefined exactly once delivery to mean that if you have a layer of abstraction that hides that a message was delivered multiple times then it is "exactly once" delivery. That's not what exactly once delivery is. You clearly disagree but taking well understood and researched terms and redefining them to make a point is a complete waste of time for everyone. Nobody cares about what your personal definition of exactly once delivery is, they care about the definition that is used in literally all of distributed systems research.

It seems like this person does not understand what exactly once delivery actually means. It's not about being able to do something exactly once if the author is reading this...

I can't discuss anything further with you when you call China democratic. You are basically a flat earther.

I've personally experienced the horrors of communism so no propaganda was needed for me.

> I think you underestimate the power of your government and the impact of economic sanctions.

I think you don't understand how the scientific method works.

Venezuela had sanctions removed, they still starved. North Korea trades directly with the massive economy of China, the people are still starving and poor.

The problem is communism and socialism, not sanctions. Stop being a stooge for dictators.

I'm going to interpret your comment as "Venezuela is starving because of US sanctions"

We actually have a really nice unintentional experiment. The Biden administration removed sanctions from Venezuela, they still had starvation after sanctions were removed.

The dictator managed to get food while the country was starving however: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDebIITJ1x0

- Venezuela

- North Korea

- Cuba

Three communist and socialist countries with starving populations.

North Korea trades freely and shares a border with China. Venezuela has no sanctions applied to it by the US.

We can now easily rule out sanctions as the cause of their woes so what is the other common factor between these countries?

- Venezuela

- North Korea

- Cuba

Three communist and socialist countries with starving populations.

North Korea trades freely and shares a border with China. Venezuela has no sanctions applied to it by the US.

We can now easily rule out sanctions as the cause of their woes so what is the other common factor between these countries?