mshake2

>a center-right think tank

Well-poisoning[0]. If there are flaws with the surveys, criticize that.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Ok. You're not OP but I appreciate the gesture.

EUA can only be used when no alternative treatment exists. As such, there was a huge coordinated effort to both discredit potential treatments ("horsey paste ahaha!!") or to just not study them. Any alternative would have meant no EUA, meaning no big vaccine contracts. We choose a path that favored the manufacturers, at the expense of alternative treatments. Treatment avenues were ignored.

0% liability for vaccine manufacturers, yet the public message that it's 100% safe. How is it possible for those two to exist and not cause cognitive dissonance? If it's 100% safe, then the manufacturers don't need any protection, and if they have 0% liability, then they have deemed that there exists a financial risk that they are not comfortable with. Otherwise it would have been "this is 100% safe and we back it by the life of our organization." Avenues to reinforce the public trust were ignored.

Why did the CDC stop tracking breakthrough infections in 2021? Shouldn't this be considered very important information to understand how our tools and the virus are performing? We're choosing to discard data instead of vacuuming it all up. Why? Relevant data was ignored.

In a snarky way, making it fairly clear what you thought, you asked me to spend time writing multiple paragraphs. That's not what I call "good faith." And the fact that you "ha gotcha" as soon as I asked for your time investment first, before I invested mine, just reinforces that. Further, you haven't responded to the person who did write the requested paragraphs, so what a waste of time that turned out to be.

Future psychiatrists will prescribe sessions with a model trained on everything your deceased loved one has ever written or said, to help you with the grieving process. It will be by prescription only because it is very addictive and should only be used to help bring closure.

Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I'll have my wife's brother arrested.

-Jared Vennett, The Big Short

Proof of trolling is asking of you that which you asked of me? That's surprisingly revealing.

If you're really asking in good faith, write me 3 paragraphs on whether or not you agree with my statement.

Volumes could be said about what we deliberately didn't try and what we deliberately didn't study. We shouldn't pretend that the venture into the unknown wasn't steered by the deep pockets of Big Pharma.

Sure, the research teams involved. I only bring up Google because it's ironic Sam is shitting on them for the tech they shared with everyone and made OpenAI possible.

Not to mention, the GPT paper comes from Google[0]. His part in this seems very very small.

0. https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/08/transformer-novel-neural-n...

>Microsoft literally laid off the co-creator of DOM who had been with the company 28 years.

"But what have they done recently?"

So this builds a 100mb docker image that proxies an http request to openai? Am I missing something? I don't want to discourage new engineers from tinkering, but can someone please explain why this is reaching the front page of HN?

Anyone giving advice should post how long they've been with their partner. Been with my partner for 15 years. Having a similar sense of humor is critical. Knowing your role in the power dynamic and how to embody it is also critical (are you leading or following?). Staying desirable is important (stay fit, take care of yourself, look good).

"Major leak" aka guerrilla marketing. C'mon, are we still pretending that these new product "leaks" are unplanned? Just preview the damn thing instead of acting like we're subverting The Man by viewing their marketing.

Isn't there a risk of never selling your stock once the GPU is seen as "previous generation" by limiting the supply artificially? Or are they just not producing enough cards in the first place? I don't really know what "We have been undershipping the sell-through or consumption for the last two quarters" means.

>And one of the things that I trained myself to do a few decades ago is pulling ideas out and pursuing them in a way where I’m excited about them, knowing that most of them don’t pan out in the end. Much earlier in my career, when I’d have a really bright idea that didn’t work out, I was crushed afterwards. But eventually I got to the point where I’m really good at just shoveling ideas through my processing and shooting them down, almost making it a game to say, ‘How quickly can I bust my own idea, rather than protecting it as a pet idea?’

Cool life lesson there

Moving to Qatar is a very common response to harassment and a failed lawsuit against local government for $15M

>"US gov shoots down Chinese little girl science project"

"Cool balloon Mei, want to bring it to the White House?"

So if 100 people in group A average a total of 10 crimes, and 5 people in group B average a total of 9 crimes, you think you are being intellectually honest when you say "group A commits more crimes" in the context of comparing the crime levels of those two groups?

You're responsible for the truthfulness of the statements that you make, especially when the data is right there on the page for you to verify for yourself. "Oh I'm just parroting someone else's distortion as fact" is not a defense.

>the picture you're suggesting is itself distorted given that other correlating factors such as social class, are ignored.

The picture I'm suggesting is that which the data shows, and you seem to be making some other leap to say something that I have not said.

Whites are 60% of the population though, so they're being arrested in proportion with their representation. They also do not separate white-latino and white-non-latino, so the colloquial "white" is being lumped in with another ethnicity. Also, in 2019, blacks were just under 13% of the population, yet they are represented 2x-4x over in virtually ever crime category in that table.

So it is true and you're distorting the table.

They've managed to codify their concept of "punching up"

You only wish you knew after you already know :)

Plenty of terrible experiences and non-working products are still very valuable to people. We're dealing with new magic here, so YMMV. I appreciate that you're trying to push to product forward, but if you have learned any background of how GPTs work, what you're asking for isn't really understood yet. The product might be too new for you.

That's not what counterculture is. Counterculture is counter the mainstream culture. Which is more mainstream in the US, (ie, in media, art, products, government, businesses, etc): suppressing LGBTQ people or giving LGBTQ people a platform? It's pretty obvious if you're being honest. You appear to be suggesting that it counts for nothing because some LGBTQ people get disowned by some conservative or religious people.

You're making an emotional argument (LGBTQ people get disowned by families) against a logical argument (LGBTQ is supported at so many levels of culture that it no longer counts as "counterculture").

>Where are all these ads, movies, and TV shows depicting non-monogamous queer relationships?

Are you kidding me?

  https://www.hbomax.com/collections/lgbtq-voices
  https://www.netflix.com/browse/genre/100010

>How is the government providing this "top-down" support?

  https://joebiden.com/lgbtq-policy/#

This is not "edgy counterculture"

>queerness is very much still edgy and not particularly accepted by the dominant/mainstream culture

Being supported by advertising, movies, tv shows, signaled by major corporations and workplaces, and supported top-down by the government means its edgy and counterculture? We live in completely different realities I guess.

You've made it sound horrifying, but I can't find a fault with it.

Do you think successful founders ever get self-conscious and insecure at the idea that their primary success had a lot of luck involved?