1,013 karma · joined September 20, 2013
People who commit murder wantonly are generally untrusted and/or shunned. Being banished is really dangerous, so people tend not to go on more killing sprees even without formal laws
It did a better job of predicting election outcomes than the polls. For markets without a cap, companies have used them to have against a politician that would pass policy that's can for their business.
This doesn't mean we should have them, but there is utility. It's just not worth the trade-offs
Insurance was illegal at different times in history because it was considered gambling. Ditto for commodity trading.
Even you look at the structure of a futures contact, the basics look really similar to a bet that can be traded with someone else.
The main differences are the regulatory environment, and the intention the actors in the market have.
Commodities, options, and futures are all legitimately used to hedge against future outcomes. The "gamble" (placing money on a future outcome) is a mechanism for the main goal: protection against instability.
When you look at stocks and - in particular - derivatives, it starts to look a lot closer to how gambling is structured. I'm pro stock market, but that doesn't mean I won't admit that the line between it and gambling is pretty hard to draw. It's a lot more grey than people give credit for
Scaling the workers sometimes exacerbates the problem because you run into connection limits or polling hammering the DB.
I love the idea of pg as a queue, but I'm a more skeptical of it after dealing with it in production
Everything you do that isn't "normal" is another conversation you need to have with an auditor plus each customer. Those eat up a bunch of time and deals take longer to close.
Right or wrong, these decisions make you less "serious" and therefore less credible in the eyes of many enterprise customers. You can get around that perception, but it takes work. Not hosting on one of the big 3 needs to be decided with that cost in mind
Nobody wants to harm their customers, but it 100% happened in the early days. A lot of harm is/was not immediately obvious. Of was repeated exposure to harmful chemicals. Good intentions are great, but resources and incentives still matter. Nobodyv wants to get hacked, but building a new feature over hardening is what stops you from getting yelled at
Cannabis is a bioremediator and absorbs basically every environmental toxin from the ground (pesticides, heavy metals, etc.). Extraction (for CBD and THC oil) increases the concentration of any present toxins.
The only way you know of the problem is by thoroughly testing every batch. Pesticides that are safe at low levels can get concentrated and become really problematic at high levels.
States where marijuana is legal require all of this testing, so the products are much safer. Hemp-derived THC does not require these tests. (Same is true for CBD, but that's a while other conversation...)
It seems like they need people willing to stretch their name to create credibility.
That said, starting with react router or expo is probably the right call depending on the project needs. Routing is not something you want to do yourself, and react native is pretty unfriendly without expo
Maybe I'm out of touch, but I don't understand why people think it's so tightly could with the ecosystem
For the tech side, we've reduced behavioral questions and created an interview that allows people to use cursor, LLMs, etc. in the interview - that way, it's impossible to cheat.
We have folks build a feature on a fake code base. Unfortunately, more junior folks now seem to struggle a lot more with this problem
Call out shady shit when companies do shady things, but the sentiment behind this comment seems to be looking for reasons to bee outraged instead of at what's actually being done.
If companies get evicerated every time they try to engage with the community they'll stop engaging. We should be celebrating when they do something positive, even if there are a few critiques (e.g. the license change call out is a good one). Instead, half the comments seem like they're quick reactions meant to stoke outage.
Please have some perspective - this action is a win for the community.
This is all positive. Super appreciate what you folks have done. It's clearly hard, well intentioned, and thoughtfully executed.
Each integration is hopefully only a few thousand lines of code, but if you have 50 integrations you can easily break 100k loc just dealing with those. They just need to be encapsulated well so that the integration cruft is isolated from the core business logic, and they become relatively simple to reason about
For example, I want the model to be able to take a basic rule and identify what subset of given text fits into the rule. (E.g. find and extract all last names) 4o and 4.1 we're decent, but still left a lot to be desired. o4-mini was pretty good at not ambiguous cases. Getting a model that runs cheaper and is better at following instructions makes my product better and more profitable with a could lines of code change.
It's not emotionally revolutionary, but it hours a great sweet spot for a lot of business use cases
Products using AI powered days processing (a lot of what I use it for) don't need mind blowing new features. I just want it to be better at summarizing and instruction following, and I want it to be cheaper. GPT-5 seems to knock all of that out of the park
The only thing you're missing for me is radon detection. I just bought a house and tests came in below remediation levels, but the report showed a lot of spikes and variance. So you have any plans for a model with radon detection in the future?
It's also weird that we have to file taxes at all. Other developed countries have their revenue agencies automatically calculate the taxes for you and send a return. The only reason we don't is because of Intuit and H&R Block lobbying like crazy to prevent this. It's rent seeking at it's worse
I don't know much about Beyond Meat's specific processes. I wanted to like their burger, but they smelled too much like dog food when coming and tasted worse than cheaper black bean burgers. Aside, from my personal preferences, they could be totally fine.
But, of someone is trying to go through their life eating relatively healthy without having to try to keep up on the latest research, less processing is the way to go. You'll cut out things that are perfectly fine (e.g. there's a small backpack against Xanthum gum that currently makes no sense to me), but you'll also avoid a lot of the cutting edge garbage that gets added and then recalled.
Whole fruits, veggies, nuts, grains, and meat is always a solid choice. I have trouble faulting people for using that as a heuristic
If I have a medical issue, the risks often outweigh the rewards. Chemo ain't good for you, but it's better than cancer. Artificial food coloring isn't necessary, and multiple dyes appear to contain carcinogenic contaminates. I can appreciate that chemo exists and avoid artificial dyes.
The US food industry also has historically introduced a lot of unhealthy and/or poisonous additives that were later banned or recalled. Formaldehyde was added to milk in the early 1900s because the industry didn't want to adopt pasteurization. Partially hydrogenated oil as margarine was advertised as a healthier butter alternative in the 50s and 60s.
There are cool things that come out of food labs (Xanthum gum is one of my favorites), but it seems weird to be condescending towards people for taking a reasonably cautious approach towards food - especially when there's historical and scientific evidence that backs the approach
If I went full vegetarian again, I'd stick with the classics - they taste so much better.
If you're being genuine and trying to point out that it's difficult to draw a clear line between "good" and "bad" processing - absolutely! Processes that have been used for a long time (decades, hundreds, or thousands of years) are generally well understood and safer. Newer processes and changes have risks. So, "can I do this in my kitchen" is a great heuristic for trying to walk a very fuzzy line.
If you're deliberately misunderstanding the intent to further an argument, get outta here with that BS :P
- Partially hydrogenated oils (most margarines in the US for a while) were pushed as a healthier alternative to butter, but turns out those are terrible for you due to trans fat. And the main difference between a trans vs cis fat is that cis fat have a kink in molecular chain and trans fats don't. Small change, but huge health difference
- The sugar industry paid food scientists in the 60s to downplay sugar's impact on heart disease and play up fat and cholesterol (Check out the "Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents" published at UCFS). This lead to food companies replacing health fats with sugars in much of their food over the last 60 years, resulting in much worse health outcomes based on bias, paid for research
- Apples and other fruit generally have a higher fructose to glucose ratio than high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). But, all of the sugar is surrounded by other nutrients and fiber, which make apples a healthy food choice and HFCS pretty bad for you.
One of the common patterns is that new processes introduced harms that were unknown at the time. Food companies have very little incentive to proactively look for harms that occur over a longer time horizon. And one thing has consistently been true: that closer a food is to how we've eaten it historically (chopped/crushed, cooked, boiled, fermented, and filtered), the less likely it is to have an unknown harm