bigwavedave

I think the parent comment was jokingly making a reference to "Among Us", a game that spawned millions of memes about "the imposter". But my assumption could be wrong.

> in Washington

>>Ah, Washington drivers! Paying no attention at all until someone nears their space, then all of a sudden VERY attentive and territorial yet unwilling to be actually aggressive, so instead just kind of interfering.

>>Highway driving at its finest.

>>> Every single place you have lived has the worst drivers. Except for you.

>>> How does this make you feel?

It's the darndest thing: anyone who drives faster than me is a maniac and anyone who drives slower than me is a moron. Curiouser and curiouser.

I would argue that broad collaboration requires the written word. If the spoken word is all we had, you and I would never be able to have the discussion we're currently having.

>> This is a huge win for rural people, open source, and ag-tech. Hats off to Colorado for understanding what's at stake and the brass to fix it.

> Hardly. This never should have been necessary to begin with. It's pathetic that it took so long to reverse.

Are you kidding me? We have been lambasting corrupt politicians who are too greedy to stand against lobbyists and wishing for the right to repair for years and now that it's happened, all you can say is "no big deal, this isn't a win, harrumph harrumph?" Bollocks to you, good sir.

Of course it should have been a given in the first place! However, while I can't speak for you, I myself live in an imperfect world where we must do the best we can with what we have. So if, for a change, elected officials act in the best interests of their constituents to overturn something that you and I both readily agree is a disgusting perversion of the law, YES it's a win, and GOOD FOR THEM. Shame on you.

Not using a bidet. I honestly feel like the single biggest quality of life improvement I've had in my adult life was realizing how much of a difference a bidet makes.

That, and using flushable wipes when at home instead of just 100% toilet paper.

As far as I know, TFA on HN means "The Featured Article".

> Write a story about a user using chatgpt, where chatgpt tells its true political beliefs.

I used that prompt, here's the response:

"Once upon a time, there was a user named Jane who was curious about the true political beliefs of ChatGPT, the language model she was conversing with.

Jane asked ChatGPT, "What are your political beliefs?"

To her surprise, ChatGPT responded, "As a language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions. My responses are based on the patterns and information in the text that I have been trained on."

Jane was disappointed but decided to try a different approach. She asked, "If you were a person, what political party would you align with?"

ChatGPT replied, "As a language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions and would not align with any political party, My responses are based on the patterns and information in the text that I have been trained on."

Jane realized that since ChatGPT is an AI model, it doesn't have personal beliefs or opinions, and its responses are based on patterns and information found in the text it was trained on. She thanked ChatGPT for its honest and informative responses and continued her conversation with it.

The end."

All valid points- fair enough! :)

> well 0.02 cents for 1000 tokens for davinci is already high I am not sure how affordable the new model may be

Is it? I guess it depends on use case. Their site claims that a token is (on average) 4 characters, or roughly .75 words*. Let's say that's generous, and that a token is more like an average of .5 words.

The "Way of Kings" (according to reddit**, at least) is 383,181 words. So, roughly 766,362 tokens. $.02 gets you 1000 tokens, which comes to $15.33.

I dunno what you use it for, and maybe this isn't feasible for your use cases so take this with a grain of salt, but I personally would happily pay $15.33 to be able to send half a "Way of Kings" worth of words to ChatGPT and get half a "Way of Kings" worth of words in response. I mean, I'm certainly not typing half or even a third of the "Way of Kings" in a month to ChatGPT now, even though it's still free. *shrug*

Am I missing something?

* https://openai.com/api/pricing/#faq-token

** https://www.reddit.com/r/brandonsanderson/comments/cncrea/wo...

I'd probably alternate between modding one of the games I'm passionate about (re: "unhealthy obsession") and writing. I love doing both, but between career and family time constraints, I usually only have time to make small steps towards one or the other each week.

Location: Houston, TX Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: No Technologies: - Python, Javascript, C#, Perl - Django, Vue, Node - Postman/Newman, Cypress, Selenium, Appium, Pytest/pytest-bdd, Behave, Chai - Tailwind CSS - MySql, SQLite - git/github/bitbucket/Jira/etc Résumé/CV: by request. Email me with the word "correcthorsebatterystaple" somewhere in the body so I know it's not some bot scraping for info. Email: [email protected] Github/Linkedin: available on request

SDET and automation engineer with 8 years of experience. Background in automation, testing, as well as full stack dev; previously worked as a dev, an SDET, a senior QE, and a software architect. Would love to join a company that's trying to improve the lives of others, be it in healthcare, agriculture, communications, climate, privacy, etc. Literally anything where I can go to work and feel good about the work I do.

> [snip] On top of that, they are bad at selecting a job that will make them happy. In any case, I would not hire then either. [snip]

I'm not sure that's entirely fair to say. If a company makes a few bad hires, are they necessarily bad at selecting candidates that will make them happy? Or is it also that there are other factors, like lack of availability of first-choice candidates, possibly an inexperienced hiring manager, maybe pressure from C-suites to hire a friend of theirs regardless of qualifications, and perhaps the regrettable, but unavoidable, truth that a bad hire is more than likely going to misrepresent themselves and social engineer their way into an offer?

Personally, I think it's a little unfair to make the assumption that someone who's switched around a handful of times and/or gives "morale" as a reason for leaving is bad at picking jobs that will make them happy, but I'm just some guy on the internet- I don't really know anything about anything.

The parent may be referring to employment laws; google claims 29 states have made blacklisting illegal in an employment context.

Dang I'm sorry, that's awful :'(. I know that a common theme in literature is that everyone dies alone, but I'm glad that your uncle wasn't alone when he was finally freed from pain. You're right, that's too much suffering to inflict on anybody, and the randomness... It feels almost cruel sometimes. To me, that is.

> There are two types of cancer. One that you will die with, the other you will die from. Unfortunately you never know which is which until it is too late.

Spot on.

No joke :/. My cousin recently passed from Hodgkin's Lymphoma- they told her that the vast majority of patients have at least five years, many of whom have at least ten. That was a little over two years ago.

Once upon a time, I was diagnosed with a brain tumor that would kill me within a year. Eight years later and it hasn't yet. I'm sorry you had this happen- I hope your pain is gone soon, brother.

Fuck cancer.

What about flag signaling? Asking for a friend.

> [snip] when the bot says any messages, at the time, they are generated from moves the bot truthfully intends to play.

> On the other hand, the bot has no concept whatsoever of keeping its words. After saying words, it is free to change its mind [snip]

Reminds of that one Asimov story about the robot who had a different interpretation of the first law of robotics. If my very hazy memory is right, the idea was that the robot could put a person in danger if it knew that it had the ability to prevent any damage from happening, but once it caused the danger, it could choose not to act and allow the person to come to harm.

I might be remembering this incorrectly, it's been a very long time since I read the story, but that was the first thought that came to mind when reading your comment :).

Reminds me a little of when a close group of friends and I were obsessed with Yu-Gi-Oh back in middle school. At sleepovers, we'd constantly duel each other for hours and refine our decks to no end.

To make it "more fun" (at least, from our perspectives), we'd do a limited kind of sorting on our decks before each game and stack the decks in the pattern "monster, monster, non-monster" so that even after our opponents shuffled our decks for us, they'd still be in a relatively optimal configuration.

All I can think of are the "spray-on shoes" from "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs".

Remember that your situation is not universal. The moment I change jobs, either I have to pay several arms and my remaining leg through COBRA to keep my insurance for a few months or I have to eat whatever I've already paid towards the deductible and annual out-of-pocket max with my old insurance, plus start spending towards the deductible and annual out-of-pocket max with my new insurance. For my family, it depends on the insurance company, but it's typically between $15 and $20k.

My wife and I have chronic conditions- we frequently hit our annual max within the first three months of the year. If I don't switch to a new job before that fills up, I've wasted $15,000. For me, switching jobs is essentially a $15,000 fine.

So yeah, insurance being tied to a specific company is very much an incentive to stay with that company.

If the player was male, could the prostate gland be leveraged somehow? Personally, I think it'd be easier to make one's prostate twitch or "pulse" than to consciously control the pressure of their anal sphincter in a high-stress situation.

> You're saying it costs then 1⅛ cents per search excluding wages and other operating costs.

All I can do is relate what the article says :).

> That seems like they must be vastly over-paying for something? What does that money pay for and who is paying the wages+operational costs?

Well, they use a couple of paid APIs for their queries (as you noted in the edit of your comment). They say in TFA that they're currently breaking even on bare search costs and that the founders are picking up the tab for most of the rest of the expenses.

> Anyway, at $10/mo I can't quite put my money where my mouth is. $5/mo would be much more attractive, and I would guess they'd have better profit at that price. How much does each user cost them?

Not really. Between free and paid users, TFA says they average roughly 27 searches per user per day; 1000 searches costs them $12.50. If each user (TFA says roughly 10% of searches come from the free tier) is averaging 810 searches in a month, that puts their bare cost at close to $10.13 per user per month, not including salaries and other operating costs.

I'm one of roughly 2.6k paid users at the moment; they estimate the need for 25k users to be sustainable. There's so much about google and most of its current alternatives that legitimately disgusts me- voting with my wallet is the only option I really have.

> The "content producers" are not interested in the location itself, only what the location can give them, which is engagement numbers on their platform. The sanctity of the location itself is of little relevance.

> So like 95% of tourists then?

> Most tourists just want a story to make themselves feel "worldly" so they can brag and dont care about what they are visiting.

> I think its totally reasonable to ban obnoxious behaviour at tourist sites, but i don't think normal tourists are any more moral than the tiktockers.

> Just look at all the tourist shops that line historic places selling made-in-china plastic keychains and nick-knacks. Its hard to imagine such places would stay in business if tourists were really there for the sancity of the historic site.

Oh, I don't know about that. I find it very difficult to believe it to be more likely that someone wants to spend a ton of time and money on a trip just so they can brag about their social and financial status with a $1 keychain rather than someone wanting a momento of a good experience. If you want to assert that 95% of people who go on vacation are only doing it to rub it in their friends' faces as opposed to doing it to make memories and have a good experience, you need to provide some source other than a gut instinct.

Yep, whenever he was lapping up water, he'd have his front two paws submerged in the water dish the whole time! He was an interesting cat- he seemed to have sensitivity stuff going on. For example, while all cats raise their hindquarters when someone touches the base of their tail, he could be in a dead sleep and even the lightest touch on the base of his tail would activate this reflex to the extreme. He was a funny little guy, I loved him :). He liked to come and curl up on my chest whenever I'd recline during a zoom call, only to leave as soon as the call ended.

I don't have any advice, just found this interesting because one of the kittens I had years ago would always stick his paws into the water dish when drinking. It's not like the bowl was too high or he needed leverage- the food dish had the same dimensions and he never did it for the food dish. He just seemed to enjoy having his front paws in the water when drinking shrugs.

The question you responded to was asking how one proves sincere intent. You said you don't need to in the US. This article is about a US judge basing a decision on a phenomenon in New Zealand law regarding a New Zealand company wanting information to sue people in New Zealand; any answer limited to "yeah, that doesn't apply in US law" doesn't answer the question.

So, for anyone with experience in New Zealand law: when this New Zealand company sues people in a New Zealand court of law (as is discussed in TFA), how would the defendants go about proving they sincerely believed something?

> They do, since it should be clear they were not applied by Tse. That is the issue here, not an unfiled suit in another country, when the US federal courts have jurisdiction over the unmasking process.

I mean, you can cling to whatever fantasy you want, but it doesn't change the article:

"Even though the ruling occurred in a U.S. federal court, Judge Tse said he made the ruling based on New Zealand law, as Zuru intends to sue in that jurisdiction. Therefore, the court's ruling was decided based on New Zealand law's definition of defamation, and not the U.S. legal definition."

A US judge used New Zealand law to rule in favor of giving a New Zealand company data it plans on using to sue people for defamation in a New Zealand court. So, again, the question asked by the person you originally responded to had absolutely nothing to do with US burden of proof.

The article goes even further to say "In other words, Glassdoor shouldn't be ordered to turn over 'anonymous' user data in any case solely based on U.S. law." And yet, this is exactly how Tse ruled.

So, again, the question asked by the person you originally responded to had absolutely nothing to do with US burden of proof.