Hey, Meta has something like 67k employees for those 3.35 billion users (for simple stats I could find), and thats. That's 50k users to an employee. I think this dev is doing quite well by those standards. :)
31,676 karma · joined July 26, 2012
Why? Lending is just giving people money they value more now than you do, so much so they agree to pay back more later. The utility at the current time of that money is better than the utility later for the lendee, and the opposite is true for the lender (they will happily forego some money available now for more money available later).
If I take a loan out to buy a car which lets me find a better job because I can travel for efficiently, and I get a better job that pays more which allows me to much more money and paying back that loan is itself even easier, is that transaction zero-sum when examined over time?
In a very simple form, if you're a fisherman you may have a surplus of fish, much more than you can eat before they go bad. Fish is not worth much to you, but maybe you need cloth for sails, the someone in the village collects and mends and sews cloth. They have a lot, but need food. Trading fish for cloth benefits you both.
Money is just an abstraction to smooth trades between people for resources they need. Scale to whatever level you want.
Their goal isn't necessarily to run a business that's profitable long term, it may be to segment it out and squeeze various segments to wring the last bits of juice out of them until leaving a dried husk while providing middling quality to the most lucrative segments to string them along.
You don't want to be in the segment destined to be juiced.
Of course, if you happen to be on a slope that leads to the global maxima, starting from scratch is far less effective. We don't really know where we are usually, so there's a trade-off.
There was a good article posted to HN years ago that covered this and used rocketry as one of the examples, but I don't recall what it was. The author was well known, IIRC.
See, this is the problem. I can't even point out that the way this is being communicated is counterproductive without you assuming I have some allegiance I'm expressing, and using a bad faith argument to try to get me to defend an assertion which is (as presented) undefensible.
I assume you feel this bad faith response is justified because you see a genocide and therefore why would you show constraint, but the other side is doing the same thing, for similar reasons, and nobody is actually trying to communicate, just yell at each other.
Congratulations on being the problem. I doubt you'll see yourself that way though, because again, why would you care how you're acting when you can tell yourself whatever you do is justified to stop a genocide?
Except that it is actually what humanity and these 8 billion people are doing, making each successive generation "better", for some definition of better that is constantly in flux based on what it believed at the current time.
It's not guaranteed though, it's possible to regress. Also, it's not humanity as a whole, but a bunch of subgroups that have slightly differing ideas of what better means at the edges, but that also share results for future candidate changes (whether explicitly through the international scientific community or implicitly through memes and propaganda at a national or group level).
It took a long time to hit on strategies that worked well, but we've found a a bunch over time, from centralized government (we used to be small tribes on plains in in caves) to the scientific method to capitalism (and whether it's what we'll consider the best choice in the future or not it's been invaluable for the last several centuries), they've all moved us forward, which is simple to see if you sample every 100 years or so going into the past.
The difference between what we've actually got in reality with the uman race and what's being promised with GAI is speed of iteration. If a areal GAI can indeed emulate what we have currently with the advancement of the human race but at a faster cycle, then it makes sense it would surpass us at some point, whether very quickly or eventually. That's a big if though, so who knows.
I think what GP was getting at is that is something along the lines of if you were accused of misconduct, and in being called into your manager's office for them to ask you about it you behaved unprofessionally enough they no longer thought you were a good fit for the company regardless of whether the accusation was true, they are entirely justified in wanting to end employment. A falsehood can reveal a separate truth about someone.
E.g. Someone falsely says you are always late to group meetings for a group project, and in being questioned you start throwing out racial slurs. Whether you were late is now a lesser issue, and while you woulf be technically correct to say you were falsely accused of being late to a few meeting and were then fired, that isn't correctly relaying the relevant information about why you were fired.
I have no information about whether this is what happened, but I think this is what the GP was trying to express about the information we have as it was presented.
If Bezos didn't own WaPo, it wouldn't be a bargaining chip to get Trump to the table with Blue Origin, and wouldn't suffer in this way because of that causing him a loss.
An LLM is like a congress of all the children voting on the answers they've heard their parents talk about in passing to other adults, which they sometimes miss the context of so misunderstand.
Useful for getting information, but not nearly as useful as asking someone with grounded domain knowledge, for multiple reasons. Depending on the topic, someone with domain knowledge can be easier or harder to find, which is why LLMs are more or less useful depending on the domain, and how important it is they are correct and not just on the right ballpark.
At least that would be my "layman that finds court cases and discussions of them interesting so consumes that as entertainment fairly regularly" best guess.
I don't think it's all that different than if I'm an employer and my employee does something illegal. An investigation can be made as to whether the acted on their own acted based on what the directions or prevailing understanding was at the company. That may change who is responsible in part or in whole and what steps need to be taken to provide recompense to those impacted by that illegal activity.
Every situation will be complex and unique in its own way. That's what courts are for, determining the unique aspects of a case and making specific ruling based on the law and the situation, as the judge (in determining what is acceptable and willing to be seen) and jury (to determine whether someone needs to be held accountable and to a degree how) see fit.
I expect a court case would be used to determine what a normal person could expect, what was represented buy the consultant company, and what exactly I requested to determine how much fault each party has.
The problem with putting a value judgement on this is that it will precondition people to assume good faith or bad faith on the validity of the assessment based on how they interpret the fairness of the court system.
Instead, we could just say that the majority of the cases are people trying to get out of legitimate debts. If we wanted to go farther, we could say that's because some people just don't feel responsible for their own debts and some people make a choice that a last ditch effort to get out of a debt they know they should pay rather is the lesser of two evils when the alternative is to continue to fail to provide adequately for their family given their circumstances, and how different people may draw that line at different points.
That's harder to articulate and a larger discussion that may be a tangent people aren't interested in discussing though, so it's probably just simpler to keep the value judgements out of it if the intent is to keep the discussion productive.
Building codes exist for reasons. Sometimes they seem frivolous, but often they're there for a damn good reason.
It's particularly demoralizing to see the scope of the problem when it's all that water flooding your property and know there's nothing you can do in the short term, and even the long term is just trying different things and hoping they work, knowing that it will probably take a few tries.
I don't think the people sorting the cases (which could be the judges themselves) have any additional information that the judge doesn't readily have available, so I'm not sure there's much room for bias of a substantial nature.
I don't think there's any sort of expectation that it would definitely go one way though, as you say. It's all business and legal constraints providing engineering constraints to build against.
I was careful to phrase my comment in a way that I thought could lead to useful discussion, because I value that, and to note it was only my understanding, because my understanding is outdated and minimal. It just so happens that I was part of a prior discussion years ago regarding suitability of 3d printed metal parts, and found some information at that time which pointed to some of the problems they have in comparison to other methods, so was interesting in learning more.
This is, of course, four years out of date, and I can't state for certain how accurate the review of the problems that video provided were, but it did a very good job of explaining what caused those problems, so I wasn't left with many questions as to why sintering wasn't as well suited for some situations. That said, I'm not in this industry, I just noticed some relation to a prior conversation I had and the topic is interesting to me.
Do we know if this is better with respect to that?
I.e. $400-$1200 for a home user is a hard sell for someone that only needs it for a bit, so they accepted the benefit piracy gained them since the sales lost was minimal. Once they could feasibly expect someone to pay $30 for a short term access to some tools (whether true or not, it's the perception of that which matters), I think there's little incentive for them to still allow that piracy.
I'm not sure if this was very forward thinking of them or they just got lucky by allowing the piracy instead of allowing cheap/free home users, but I suspect they would have had a much harder time trying to charge for home users if they had previously offered home user free use licenses to legalize the benefit that piracy was providing. Raising prices is harder than enforcing pricing that was unenforced, and charging something for what was previously free is very hard to get away with without a huge reputation impact.[1]
1: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/13/156737801/the-...