krzysiek

This is the template for the prompt that is used here (everything below "{copy_rule}"): https://github.com/netizer/feature-ledger/blob/main/assets/B...

The core idea is identifying features where you answer "yes" to the question: "Could you demo it?"

Regarding the value of such tools when working with codebases whith heavy coding agent use - absolutely. Especially when code generated by models such as Astra can be pretty unreadable (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49654229)

A service summarising and simplifying EU laws, resolutiins, decisions and so on: https://euforya.eu/

One thing I find especially intriguing is how LLMs can help deal with desinformation:

- I experiment with deterministic settings of local LLMs for the document summary so that sharing a prompt would prove that the output was not tempered with (no desinformation on the service side)

- I add outputs of several LLMs (from the US, the EU and from China) for the "broader context" section so users could compare the output (no desiformation on the provider and model side)

It didn't change for me (Also on Firefox/Android). I meant at the top of the screen in the menu section. An icon that resembles a piece of paper. On desktop it explicitly says "Show Olmo Trace" and both "piece of paper" icons work.

To see OlmoTrace go to https://playground.allenai.org/ and after you get the responce to your prompt, click the secod icon from the right on the top (at least on mobile). It took me a while to find it because there is another icon under the responce that looks the same but does something else.

They still do, but they used to too.

You're talking about checking boxes, but are they your boxes or the boxes of what seems to be the norm? Your own, deeply personal, true goals are the ones that can change how you work and feel about your work and life.

You could try coaching (look for ICF certified, or if you're in UK, AC certified coach). This would help you find goals that trully matter TO YOU, and develop fulfilling process for reaching these goals.

You could also try pschoterapy. This could help you be more self-aware and develop mental skills for dealing with feelings that you described.

My favorite part: "EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them. The screen also interrupts EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari intending to navigate to a webpage."

I mean it's like saying that having a choice before being educated by one of the parties among the choices is a bad thing and it looks bad.

"the results were the same regardless of whether the children published posts and pictures via their own social media pages or whether they liked and commented on posts published by others." - so basically the study compared people that use social media actively and passively. It's harder to compare children that use social media with the ones that don't.

It seems to me that building expectations based on social media (e.g. just by browsing) is the real problem, not posting or not.

Honestly I believe that the other way around would be way better. There is a lot of inefficiencies in the way governments work, plus they operate like monopolies.

On the other hand there is competition between nonprofits, plus they are often multinational.

I find it interesting that some of the most efficient government organizations (like World Food Programme) actually operate as charities (in the sense that everyone can donate to them).

You're totally right about donations + value of time. Thank you for pointing that out. It's hard to tell if these numbers can be compared. Also [4] paints a very different picture (although it's for 2016).

I think that philanthropic assets should correlate to donations, but you're right also here the numbers from this source cannot be compared to the numbers I mentioned before.

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...

> In the contemporary world, philanthropy is distinctively American. We give about four hundred and seventy billion dollars a year—more if you count donations of time, physical labor, and material. America’s total is ahead of any other country’s, even as a percentage of G.D.P.

Well, this is just not true.

Americans give 2.1% of GDP to charity [1] while the whole world gives just under 3% [2]. Also when you take a look at a comparison between countries [3] you can see that the US is far behind (percentage-wise, not rank-wise) countries like Netherlands (14%) or Switzerland (13.3%)

1. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&...

2. https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/docu...

3. https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-w...

Looking at the comments I think that most of commenters missed an important point. It's not just that the app is tracking users, but the messages sent by any non-Chinese user help the regime censor the content for Chinese users. In other words, if you use WeChat, and you send a photo of something that happened in Hong Kong along with some text that explains it, then you actually help Chinese authorities to censor this photo in China.

> Upon analysis, files deemed politically sensitive are used to invisibly train and build up WeChat’s Chinese political censorship system.

Also I think it's super cool how they did the research.

IMHO it's not a matter of security vs the lack of it, but more around: easy, documented, accessible security vs security through obscurity.

The board and the rules: https://multigogame.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/multiplayerg...

It's tempting to say that some proof is not there yet, but considering the amount of studies published every year and inability to read even abstracts of all of them it's often far fetched. It was shown more than once that certain gut bacteria cure certain kinds of allergies: http://evidenceba.se/answers/17-allergies-can-be-treated-wit...

Thanks for sharing your experience. I found the info about YAG laser, and also that's the recommendation that my mom got, but it's great to read about an optimistic outcome. It seems to me that for now YAG is the best option.

This study was published 2 months ago. I was doing the research because my mom had a cataract surgery, and now she got diagnosed with posterior capsule opacification. I haven't found anything else. It seems like that's a very new thing.

Exactly. Here are the most important points from the full Nature paper: http://evidenceba.se/sources/42-lens-regeneration-using-endo...