Why would Philosophy still be a better major than say, English or Physics? In that world, you should still pursue whatever interests you most because critical thinking is fostered regardless of major.
1,805 karma · joined September 10, 2020
Why would Philosophy still be a better major than say, English or Physics? In that world, you should still pursue whatever interests you most because critical thinking is fostered regardless of major.
- understand the main points of clear standard speech on familiar topics such as work, school, or leisure - manage most situations that occur while traveling in German-speaking areas - produce simple, connected text on familiar subjects - describe experiences, events, dreams, hopes, and ambitions, and briefly explain your opinions or plans
That seems like a reasonable standard of native language proficiency to ask of people who want to make the county with said language their permanent home.
[1] https://www.sprachenatelier-berlin.de/en/topic/3736.german-p...
But in the last couple years I’ve seen the Mets and Phillies multiple times, and it’s now one of my favourite sports to watch thanks to the pitch clock increasing the pace of the game. I’d be really curious to see data on how many new fans the league got after the change.
> If there were a way to eliminate the hallucinations, somebody already would have. An army of smart, experienced people people, backed by effectively infinite funds, have been hunting this white whale for years now without much success.
Research has been going on for what, like 10 years in earnest, and the author thinks they might as well throw in the towel? I feel like the interest in solving this problem will only grow! And there's a strong incentive to solve it for the important use cases where a non-zero hallucination rate isn't good enough.
Plus, scholars have worked on problems for _far far_ longer and eventually solved them, e.g. Fermat's Last Theorem took hundreds of years to solve.
Everything I’ve read has been the opposite. I thought people from the beginning saw that AI would amplify a senior’s skills and leave less opportunities for juniors.
> you'd have to do a study to show that the talent couldn't have been trained in the US, and that an increased supply of workers didn't drag down salaries, either short or long-term.
If the median H1B for software is exactly the same as the overall median, it makes you wonder if the median would be different if the H1B was not an option available to employers.
True, and this could maybe be solved by better app store review.
Every app submitted to the app store is reviewed by a human for approval. The reviewers could apply more scrutiny to photo permissions and reject apps whose permissions aren't justified.
Let’s say one particular org at a company engaged in the activity in question, generating increased profits for the whole company. Taking this approach to the extreme, literally every shareholder could be liable because they benefited from those profits.
But are they sufficiently different that stalling progress in one doesn't imply stalling progress in the other?
The is partially true but leaves out an important difference between Canadian and American admissions. In Canada you are admitted to a particular major, not the university as a whole.
E.g. At the University of Waterloo, CS and some of the engineering majors can have < 5% admissions rate and are extremely merit based. At the same time, applying for the general Bachelor of Arts at UWaterloo is uncompetitive and very easy to get admitted.
1. Admitting a certain amount of students based on legacy status is not necessarily a bad thing
2. A University should not be eligible for taxpayer funds if they have admissions like (1) or similar holistic criteria.
In a society as diverse as America I think 2 is a fair line to draw. And the universities with large and powerful alumni networks where legacy admissions are most relevant have the least "need" for public funds. They have huge endowments.