smallnix

AI bubble wrap or AI insulating foam?

> I’m not charging. No paywall. No “freemium” trap. Just pure value.

This had me drop out of the article..

> They only upstream some bug fixes that would be too onerous to keep in their private fork.

Are you arguing that more good things would go upstream if it were licensed non-permissive or are you giving an example were it works well enough?

Babies would go nuts over this, so much contrast and movement

I see myself more as a code mentor and value-creation coach

The important bit is adjective vs. noun.

Adjective: female doctor vs women doctor (guidelines recommend to use female, there is discussion about this but not much)

Noun: I dated three females vs I dated three women (guidelines clearly recommend women)

I was also thinking of refractory periods with neurotransmitters. But I don't know much about this.

At least some projects run longer I understand: > Last year China completed a project, begun in 1978, to plant a 2,000-mile-long belt of trees

> This is the first time I see anyone indicating there is a connotation for objectification there.

Happens to all of us, we are all inside our small information bubbles. The curious engage in broader conversation, such as us on HN.

Let me drop some links to illustrate that this is not just my personal (mis-) understanding:

- "Female, woman: Revised guidance noting that some people object to the use of female as a descriptor for women because it can be seen as emphasizing biology and reproductive capacity over gender identity. It can also sometimes carry misogynistic tones that may vary in severity by race, class and other factors." AP Stylebook recommends female as adjective, women as noun (https://help.apstylebook.com/support/solutions/articles/6600...)

- "Otherwise, avoid using “male” and “female” as nouns and instead use the specific nouns for people of different ages (e.g., women)." (https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-...)

- "Overall, participants rated the words females/males as more biological and technical, and women/men as higher on all other dimensions (e.g., appropriate, polite, warm)" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36348255/)

- https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/lady-woman-female-us...

- https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/462498/the-use-o...

I don't ascribe to everything written here, but I think it makes clear that wider discourse on the topic exists. Especially when using female(s) as a noun.

> using "man" in the "mankind" context isn't really a misuse or inherently sexist

I understand the ethymologic perspective, but the above statement is part of on-going discussion.

E.g. > To refer to all human beings, use terms like “individuals,” “people,” or “persons” rather than “man” or “mankind” to be accurate and inclusive.

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-...

I personally like 'man' as it had a poetic ring to me. I also think it makes sense to pay attention to the differing perception of language, as I want to be able to communicate effectively with all kinds of people.

I should have been more precise, I meant one-sided objectification. I thought the point would come across with my 'OR' example.

I was disqualified by the military from serving solely because of my sleep disorder.

I missed that one, thanks. This changes the optics on this for me.

I guess I am more attuned to this when the topic is "'sex warfare' by beautiful Russian and Chinese young women on nerds".

Good example for the extreme lengths people go to. Yet there is a huge difference in effort of fathering a child vs. pregnancy and delivering a child. Regardless of the parent in either case disappearing afterwards.

>Attractive female whom men

What is it on the Internet with calling women 'females'? I'd understand if you had written 'males' and 'females' OR 'men' and 'women'. This indicates an attempt at objectification to me.

> Never did I ever meet anyone in the militar

The military disqualifies people with severe sleep disorders..

Nice survivor bias example.

Note, I can't speak to this particular case.

> I guess I’d assumed this sort of thing would be allocated dynamically

At the scale of a hyperscaler I think Alibaba is the one that would be doing that. AWS, Azure and I assume Alibaba do lease/rent data centers, but someone has to own the servers / GPU racks. I know there are specialized companies like nscale (and more further down the chain) in the mix, but I always assumed they only lease out fixed capacity.

And STOP having sleep disorders!

But then upper management becomes middle management. Or headcount is consolidated and still quantifies a mega-middlemanagers worth.

> bad behaviour isn’t caused by any single bad piece of data, but by the combined effects of significant fractions of the dataset

Related opposing data point to this statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45529587

Alopecia Areata ≠ Androgenetic Alopecia

I think this ties very well into the advise of the article and is not orthogonal / different.

In case you can share an alternate strategy to make a career in a large tech company, please do, would be interested.

> ripped fetuses out of pregnant women

This is insane brutality. A cursory search, I don't want to do more than that, tells me it's a misattribution of an older Mexican cartel murder.

I think they are not saying it's unprofitable, but rather that the current government should shape the market so the environment levels more over US vs the rest. (of course please in a laissez-faire change the market style not the bad socialist stuff)

And these caching boxes can't talk back to Google?

Querying an LLM for 'facts' is dangerous. Using some IR technique and incorporating LLMs to gauge relevancy and semantic alignment is a viable approach.

Please post a link to a picture of your national ID. /s

When the axe came to the forest, the trees said: at least the handle is one of us.

Is this for ipv4 and ipv6?