agubelu

We're kinda blessed to not have to worry too much about it, because the tool we use for schema management [1] removes the need for migrations for most additive schema changes.

It refuses to auto-generate potentially destructive migrations so you have to write those by hand, and this tool would be useful in that case. But we review those more carefully since they're the exception and not the rule.

[1] https://gitlab.com/deltaex/schematic

Maybe it has to do with the fact that you can use it to summarize or reply to any text without the need to read it yourself, for the sake of "productivity".

Strong disagree. One of my favorite use cases for LLM chatbots is to satisfy random niche curiosities whenever they cross my mind and get pointers for further reading. This often leads to going down some niche rabbit hole and learning some interesting stuff in the process.

Whenever I tried the same with Google in the past, more often than not I couldn't find what I was looking for, because I didn't know the correct keywords to search for in order to start getting relevant results. With ChatGPT & co. I can just pose the question in natural language, get results and continue exploring.

That would be as close to a declaration of war as you can get without firing a bullet.

The immediate and obvious response would be for the foreign branches of those companies to be declared "of national interest", nationalized and forced to keep operating.

> * Everyone over estimates their driving ability vs the average

Exactly. If there's an issue, I'd much rather delegate control to the pilots or train drivers who have been trained to deal with such issues.

I'll take a trip by train or plane rather than by car every single time.

I feel WAY more safe knowing that the vehicle is operated by trained professionals and there's an extremely robust system around them to ensure safety, rather than whatever semblance of control I think I have driving my car.

Just curious, do you have dual citizenship? If not, what's exactly your plan to acquire a legal resident status quickly, and where?

So you don't do anything because you have a job you need to keep and a kid to take care of, but you're perfectly okay with moving to a completely different country on short notice?

I'd say a couple of reasons:

- The American political system has been very successful in telling its people that the only acceptable way to show discontent and enact change is by voting on elections.

- Lots of people are okay with it because it can only happen to the "bad guys", and why would it ever happen to them since they're the "good guys"... right?

How do you measure whether some output corresponds to 8 hours of work, and not 4 or 16 hours?

Isn't that what the author means?

"it still requires genuine expertise to spot the hallucinations"

"works very well if you do know what you are doing"

Even assuming that's the case, everyone's acting like throwing more GPUs at the problem is somehow gonna get them to AGI

"Wrong" is a concept that clearly applies when something is objectively wrong.

I asked ChatGPT for help with Wordle the other day, by asking for a 5-letter word that contained P, M, K and Y. It said:

> Yes, the word skimp contains the letters P, M, K, and Y

Would you say that wrong is not a concept that applies to this answer?

> Suddenly no British man can be more than 3 months in another European country before being “banned”

People finding out that voting against free movement means movement will no longer be free remains my favorite Brexit trope.

> 737 Max incidents proved it isn’t always the case.

> This is also not the NTSB or FAA doing direct investigation . Without certainty no one is issuing a directive, at this stage it is simply too early and only a possibility

You are mistaken. The first MAX crash resulted in emergency directives being issued barely a week after the crash. That investigation was conducted by the Indonesian authorities, not US ones.

Emergency directives aren't issued when there's complete certainty, quite the opposite. Hence the "emergency" bit.

> I wouldn’t read so much intent during high stress part of takeoff from two non native speakers

I agree there's some fuzziness since the exact transcription wasn't provided. But "why did you cut out the engines" is by no means a normal question when facing sudden thrust loss.

I think there are a couple of factors that disprove these theories:

- The specific mention of "cut off" in the CVR is very telling. If both pilots were genuinely surprised, you'd expect they'd say something like "engine failure" or "loss of thrust" first. Noone thinks the engines have been shut down as a knee-jerk reaction to a sudden loss of thrust.

- If investigators had the slightest indication there's a software or hardware bug out there that randomly causes dual engine failures, an emergency airworthiness directive would have been issued by now. This hasn't happened.

Yet Occam's razor still applies

Respectfully, media reports on what the investigation is focusing on should be taken with a grain of salt unless said media is known to be reputable and have credible sources.

If they had a credible indication of a technical failure that causes engines to randomly shut down, they would have already grounded 787 fleets, which hasn't happened.

I keep reading "muscle memory" but the theory that one pilot shut down the engines instead of performing another action has nothing to do with muscle memory.

Muscle memory allows you to perform both actions effectively but doesn't make you confuse them. Especially when the corresponding sequence of callouts and actions is practiced and repeated over and over.

All of us have muscle memory for activating the left blinker in our car and pulling the handbrake, but has anyone pulled the handbrake when they wanted to signal left?

It's also a very US-centric thing to think that the US is the only country with significant differences between its internal subdivisions.

The countries with strong social-democratic parties are not the ones you think they are.

Actually I've never understood the "free-as-in-beer" thing. Where is beer free?

I agree it's more likely to be used by older generations but it's not uncommon to hear it around either, especially when addressing or refering to elders

Spanish has actually three levels of formality when addressing someone by name:

<First name>: Informal, casual conversation.

Don <First name>: More formal, conveys respect while still indicating some closeness.

Señor <Last name>: Most formal, normally used in writing.

Using only someone's last name is just plain weird. If you want to speak formally to someone just address them as "usted", it will get you the same goodwill without sounding off.

In the weird edge cases you can simply err on the side of politeness and use the formal version. Worst case scenario they'll simply tell you to drop it and use tu instead.

Would you say that analogies are like a sink where meaning and intentionality is lost?