teiferer

> It’s the food

Your sibling comment from 1 minute earlier:

> I am personally dealing with colon cancer, and one of the incredibly annoying things about the awful disease is the number of truly clueless people who use it to advance some culinary agenda they believe in without evidence.

A revision control system is a tool the journalists could use to achieve this. Commits to the 'enacted' branch could have commit messges documenting the context (when, how, why, who). Unmerged branches could represent proposed but ultimately rejected (or still in progress) changes with the same amount of meta data.

Of course a tool itself doesn't solve the problem. You need somebody to use the tool. But the tool makes it easier to solve the problem.

Could you elaborate?

They detect being coated, no matter liquid or not. (Source: Parents who smoke. And don't tell me the crap they are inhaling is a liquid.)

Sticking your head into non-liquid substances can have the same outcome. It therefore is not a suitable method for detecting wetness.

That statement is nonsensical for the usual formal notion of "undecidable" which is about infinite sets of inputs that a machine is asked to classify as "yes" or "no" instances, also called a decision problem.

P-vs-NP is no such decision problem. It has a single instance, we just don't know its validity.

> I think it unlikely given the harm it would do to them

Did it harm them in any real way that the original training material was also of questionable origin? Not the least.

We're being naive if we think this is not happening. Apart from some high profile enterprise contracts (which average Joe Physics Researcher does not have as they are using "free" credits insteador pay a personal account out of their own pocket), everything remotely attractive is being mined. Too sweet of a gold mine to pass by.

I'll stand corrected if an official statement from OpenAI/Anthropic comes out stating the opposite together with a whistleblower program worth its name. Until then it is safe (and reasonable) to assume that this is going on. The silence is telling.

Good public transit even benefits those not using it by reducing other kinds of traffic. Everbody should be in favor of such investments but many people just don't think that far during their next traffic jam frustrations in rush hour.

I'd love to make a survey to see if people read that headline as past or future. Honestly, I couldn't tell before reading the article.

Isn't that sad? The language used for international communication is ambiguous about whether a statement is in future or past?

A good writer minimizes ambiguity by re-wording things in unambiguous ways. (Or the opposite, if desired.)

> are there solutions for communication when international links are cut

There are, but currently the most promising one is under control of a very rich and very politically opinionated person who is not afraid to use that power in any way he pleases.

A truly distributed version (with multiple tech stacks, ownership and control) would be the real solution but I don't see any way this could ever manifest.

Not sure why this is getting downvoted. In its specific case that's quite obviously not a good example because removing benign spots isn't harmful, but overlooking malignant ones is, so there is no downside.

But if we think a little further and generalize then there is great risk (and by extension, harm) to delegate diagnosis and treatment (of health issues in general, including potentially or supposedly fatal ones) to ChatGPT and similar tech. That we'd end up with a net positive is far from obvious.

And in terms of overall cost for society, is that actually a good thing? It's not like they are actually providing much redundancy. If one breaks (cut during some construction in the street), the other one likely does too. The resources used to put those redundant cables in could have been used better for other things.

In Berlin, the left (a party literally called The Left) was leading and eventually implementing an initiative to privatize tens of thousands of city-owned housing units. The same left which has just been elected to re-collectivize those same housing units.

(Tbf when they did the first of these two things, lots of housing units were unpopular and empty.)

Agreed, though it's society owning, not government. Practically the same thing, but "government-owned" makes it sound like an adversarial entity and some anti-establishment folks may feel good (or entitled, even) damaging such things. But they then just hurt all of us since it's owned by all of us. (Cf. current protests in France)

As much as I understand the urge to step in when somebody is wrong on the internet ... The R in PR is for "request", isn't it? A merged pull request is still a request (which was satisfied/merged).

If I ask you a question and you answer it, and then I show you a link to a document containing my question, then what somebody finds when following that link is still a (now-answered) question, isn't it?

> you cannot have public policy decisions made on the basis of secret intel in a democracy.

That is the direct consequence of what you said right before. You don't want decisions made by unelected officials non-overridable in a democracy, but for that democratic process to work effectively, the information needs to be in the open. Anything not in the open can just as well stay beyond the reach of elected folks.

> Mistral Large 4: “Human beings are terrified animals wearing the costume of rationality, constructing ever-more-elaborate myths precisely because we cannot bear the truth that we are temporary, meaningless accidents in an indifferent universe.”

I wonder if religion takes on a large part of responsibility for this. It tends to strongly reject the "temporary, meaningless accidents in an indifferent universe" part, and if you learn your whole life that we (and you in particular) are special and there is a hidden meaning to everything, then it is exceptionally hard to let go of that fundamental premise.

For anybody not familiar with pgrust or ClickBench:

Pgrust is a re-implememtation of postgresql in rust.

ClickBench is a benchmark suite for databases.

The link goes to a removal request of pgrust fromthat benchmark because of its alleged cheating.

On the one hand, it makes sense to focus on few whitelisted providers with whom there are explicit confidentiality agreements.

On the other hand, the simplest explanation is that the Microsoft grip on those government agencies is strong and with them already exclusively using the Microsoft ecosystem like all swedish public employers are (including universities), it's only the natural next step to strongarm them into using exclusively their AI offering as well.

Honest question, in what way did you find it preachy? I didn't feel that it tried to sway me in a certain direction. If anything, it made me think about multiple sides to many coins.

> the ending was disappointing

Nothing beats a good cliffhanger to make everybody hyped up for a sequel!

Not to spoil it, but don't keep your hopes up for a great ending.

In principle, this in not surprising. Throw 100 normal-distributed values at the number line with mean 1 and std deviation 2 and some will end up below 0. The higher you make the mean, the fewer will end up negative and eventually it's unlikely (though still possible) one does.

Haha nice!

I'm a noob in this, could you enlighten me: what role does the base model play which you started with?

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time following your math. Could you please enlighten me?

8.3bn people on earth. 90% if that is ... more than 3.5bn? Something like 7.4bn? How can "the bottom 90%" be included in those 3.5bn?

And I also don't follow where the "a million people in the bottom 90%" are suddenly coming from. Which million out if those 7.4bn people?

I'm really at a loss w.r.t. your arguments.

How recent is that code?

3.5 billion people are the bottom 90%?

A quick google search indicates that the top 1% accouted for 16% of greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-... Yes that is a lot. But 1% includes many more thn just the billionaires and it also means that if the remaining 99% don't get their emissions in check, it doesn't matter much what the top 1% do, let alone the billionaires.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the billionaires should not do anything. If anybody is in a position to adjust their behavior, it's them. But acting as if as long as the billionaires don't change their behavior, nobody needs to, is the route straight to failure, though it is a very easy narrative for sure.

> The environmental movement does itself no favours either by pursuing high social cost but low impact interventions like paper straws

How much energy has the environmental movement put into the paper straw topic compared to the attention it is continuously getting from those trying to ridicule the environmental movement?

None of my environment activist friends ever talks about plastic/paper straws. They tend to drink straight out of the glass/cup/bottle/can if anything. The only people bringing this up are those continuously pushing against change and those not realizing that it is just a big distraction topic to get people worked up.

It is quite exemplary how often the topic has been mentioned independently in just the discussions of this article.

Please stop falling for this.

> But we are told that plastic straws are the issue, and switching to paper straws (that you need to use twice as many of when they inevitably dissolve) will solve the problems.

Could we please stop with this strawman (sorry pun) topic of paper straws? Nobody claims that they solve the problems and they have just become this distracting meme that ridicules all efforts at environmental protection. Yes plastic straws are bad, no they are not among the top-10 problems humanity needs to address and yes the topic has been blown out of proportion just to make fun of things. If you care, do you not realize that every time you bring this up you are doing us all a disservice?

So, please, let's drop it and focus on actual issues of regulatory approaches to climate change instead.

> but it's clearly irrational to make sacrifices, when other people are unwilling to do that.

You realize that if everyone has that attitude then nothing will ever change, right? "You take the first step!" "No, you take the first step!"

> Why should the average person reduce his/her life quality in order to save the climate, when the average billionaire

I understand (and share) the sentiment, but there are not that many billionaires. Even if they all suddenly became vegans who never travel and live in a small house, that would not solve the problem. What the masses do is what has to change. How they travel, what they eat and buy and consume, their housing.