Game nights, social running clubs, hobby groups, and community classes.
109 karma · joined December 9, 2010
-- compress the following text in a way that fits in a tweet (ideally) and such that you (GPT-4) can reconstruct the intention of the human who wrote text as close as possible to the original intention. This is for yourself. It does not need to be human readable or understandable. Abuse of language mixing, abbreviations, symbols (unicode and emoji), or any other encodings or internal representations is all permissible, as long as it, if pasted in a new inference cycle, will yield near-identical results as the original text: --
There is no reason to think GPT-4 has any special knowledge about prompts, or how they should be effectively compressed so that it will treat it as equivalent to the original. It does an interesting job of faking it. But they are basically asking GPT-4 for a stylized version of "summarize the following:".
Are you a wiz with gnarly requirements who chews up bugs and spits out stunningly documented code? We’re on the hunt for a software cowboy with a firmware flare to help our seasoned team wrangle that next batch of gold standard sawmill scanning products to market. You’ll need gumption to pull it off: a knack for self-direction and an aptitude for customer support goes a long way in these parts. You’ll also need to work well with others; there are no lone rangers in this outfit. It’s a tall order, but you’ll be richly rewarded if you can make the grade.
This is an opportunity to make a difference. Sawmills throughout the world will depend on the technology you develop to get the most from our forests.
Don't know about R.
If a company's job postings said "We are an amoral corporation and we don't pretend otherwise", would that help their hiring?
I agree that we should take a skeptical view to corporations virtue signalling. But I also think even democratic governments have at best a marginally stronger claim to moral virtue. That combined with the challenges of crafting regulations that achieve the desired results (desired by who though?), with acceptable levels of negative expected and unexpected consequences (acceptable by who?). Good regulation is important, but it is fiendishly difficult to do well.
We are not exactly a startup, but are small and growing fast. We develop very high performance machine vision products, which provide tremendous efficiency gains to our sawmill customers. Plus, we are located in Vancouver Washington, on the Columbia River and a short drive from the Cascades.
The wealth inequality gini coefficient is not very useful and misleading. You could have a country where people choose to take on debt when they are young, and all of them end up with the same higher level of wealth later in life. This would be a very equal society, but could have a very high wealth inequality gini coefficient. To actually judge the wealth inequality of a society the analysis should be done cross-sectionally, comparing within age cohorts. [https://www.sv.uio.no/esop/english/publications/articles/201...]
I'm not sure I like that solution.
Maybe Amazons motives are not really based on their obligation to protect the company from unnecessary liability. Maybe that is just a handy excuse for getting rid of a customer that is hurting their reputation. It is difficult to say from the outside. But even then how do we decide which companies are allowed cease business with customers damage their reputation. What if a smaller provider has an existentially large customer who threatens to leave if they don't stop doing business with another unsavory customer. Will have a rule that is so strict they just have to go out of business? Or will we not allow the large customer to leave? It is god damned mine field.
This is all such a beautiful example of the immense complexity of the real world. People must make hard decisions where there are no clearly right answers. Maybe they try to do the most ethical thing, maybe they look out for their company, or maybe they serve their own selfish interest. Regardless, there is lots of potential for unintended consequences. For one, others will then frame those actions and the consequences in a narrative to support their own business or political goals.
It is such a basic, clear, and useful formalism, it is hard to imagine it not becoming widespread under some name/syntax.
But if-then-else is only clearly inevitable if you take as axiom the existence of store program computers with control flow. I can much more easily imagine that early on we invented a very different way to do computation as a whole. It seems likely that what we have actually invented is on a path toward a local optima.
Much of the data could be because people who are significantly underpaid can and do switch jobs and get a big salary bump to market rate. But once someone is at market rate, it is difficult to find a job that pays super market rates, so they stay put.
The authors don't provide any longitudinal data to show that serial job hoppers get paid more over the long run. They provide anecdotal hearsay, and a questionable extrapolation from statistical data.
I seriously question if this isn't a parody of modern academic criticism.
At best HFT is a near zero sum game. It isn't creating value for customers. It isn't making the world a better place.
It is an unfortunate flaw of our economic system that so many smart people put so much effort into playing zero sum games with each other.
I just misread their statement. They probably meant the up-time before this incident.
"Throughout our history, we have provided 99.999% uptime in our DNS infrastructure. This is the level our customers expect from us and the level we expect of ourselves. We have let our customers down and we know it."