johngladtj

None of which is acceptable

Yeah, that's not true.

Generally speaking you shouldn't be able to impose your will on others

Funny, I'm working on the back office of fund administration and everything he said seems pretty accurate to my daily life.

Coming into the office and seeing 20 emails because some technical fault cause a file to not be delivered by a counterparty is a daily occurrence

You're right, mortgages are consensual.

We absolutely should sunset those laws.

If they are needed they can be voted upon again by parliament, and will no doubt pass.

In fact I would say not only should all laws have built in expiration dates, such expiration dates should be shorter the lower the percentage of votes in parliament it too to pass them!

If you can only get a 51% majority in parliament to pass a law, that law should not exist beyond that election.

I've only ever seen it go the other way around

Try paying only 77% of your mortgage and let me know if the bank thinks that you're not in default.

You're welcome to believe what you will, but the fact is I've written code that serves a purpose and provides value to those businesses, and at the end of the day that's is all that matters, not some arbitrary purity test you just made up.

The purpose of programming is to provide value for people, not to read documents.

This.

Frankly I don't want to spend 2 hours reading documentation just to find out some arcane incantation that gets the computer to do what I want it to do.

The interesting part of programming to me is designing the logic. It's the 'this, then that, except when this' flow that I'm really interested in, not the search for some obscure library that has some function that will parse this csv.

Llms are great for that, and let me get away from the pointless grind and into the things that I enjoy and are actually providing value.

The pair programming is also a super good thing. I work best when I can spitball and throw out random ideas and get quick feedback. Llms let me do that without bothering others who have their own work to do.

She's right, they have bureaucracy and eurocrats

Why keep this fantasy? We have the data, and it doesn't match your statement.

So every Canadian?

Leading zeros are not extraneous and should not be removed though

We have the data. Homeschooling outcomes are better. This isn't up in the air, we know the answer.

Warren buffet historically supported tariffs...

That's not actually true.

Many times in corporate environments you don't have permissions to do that, and let me tell you it's a pain when you 5 layer down a RDP rabbit hole to figure out which locale you're using

Both the disclaimers and the scientific literature say the same thing.

Just because you want to ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist

I have asked it about myself, it got some stuff right and most of it wrong, just as expected.

It's little different from rolling a dice to pick the next word, should that be made illegal? Of course not.

The way these llms works are extensively documented and published, there are thousands of scientific papers about it, and even if you are not inclined to that you can find hundreds of youtube videos explaining how it works.

Their very disclaimer states it should not be relied upon as a source of truth.

Anyone who cares to know, knows that.

If this guy didn't, it's because he didn't care to know.

This is a stupid lawsuit and I hope noyb loses it.

If I make a website where you press a button and get a random string, should I worry about being sued under gdpr for defamation? Particularly when I make it clear it's getting a random string?

I should hope not, but somehow noyb thinks otherwise.

Nuclear is not too slow, bureaucracy and political ill will is.

How many nuclear power plants has china built during a similar period? How many did France when they were building out their grid?

This isn't a technical problem.

There may well be multiple local minimums that get reinforced through habituation.

Regulation is not a constant factor.

You're welcome to invest your own money into ponzi schemes. I just ask that you don't force me to do so as well, or to bail you out.

Would you support such a change?

If you issued the treasuries yourself it would be.

Do you think investors just give money away?

That's called outlawing it

That's a great of sidesteping the massive costs of doing all those things

Yes of course. After all what could be more undemocratic than, let me check, "voting to change your countries foreign policy"

Pro-tip: if your democracy doesn't support changing course on foreign policy engagements, you're not a democracy

That's called pan nationalism a superset of nationalism