omarspira

I would be surprised if this dichotomy you're painting holds up to scrutiny.

My understanding is Gemini is not far behind on "intelligence", certainly not in a way that leaves obvious doubt over where they will be over the next iteration/model cycles, where I would expect them to at least continue closing the gap. I'd be curious if you have some benchmarks to share that suggest otherwise.

Meanwhile, afaik something Google has done, and perhaps relates back to your point re "latency/TPS/cost dimensions" that other providers aren't doing as much is integrating their model into interesting products beyond chat, at a pace that seems surprising given how much criticism they had been taking for being "slow" to react to the LLM trend.

Besides the Google Workspace surface and Google search, which now seem obvious - there are other interesting places where Gemini will surface - https://jules.google/ for one, to say nothing of their experiments/betas in the creative space - https://labs.google/flow/about

Another I noticed today: https://www.google.com/finance/beta

I would have thought putting Gemini on a finance dashboard like this would be inviting all sorts of regulatory (and other) scrutiny... and wouldn't be in keeping with a "slow" incumbent. But given the current climate, it seems Google is plowing ahead just as much as anyone else - with a lot more resources and surface to bring to bear. Imagine Gemini integration on Youtube. At this point it just seems like counting down the days...

Guess they didn't see that coming says guy quoting them seeing it coming - u.

^ here you can downvote this one too

just don't be so smug. So many smug takes, not enough critical thinking. All of the founding was littered with irony anyway. He is to have said that to someone who couldn't vote, right? What does that imply?

They were men after all, not gods - as they warned later generations to remember. One wonders what your theory, what your solution is. What is your form of government? After all, in a different time perhaps something like a pardon is a useful instrument against the sort of mob rule they feared. Maybe it isn't. The Congress of the founding is far different from that of today.

But if you follow the broad strokes of what they predicted and what has happened, it's hard to argue they didn't see this coming. In fact they did. If they failed in preventing it that is one thing, but they clearly foretold of that possibility. And they ultimately decided it's up to the future, not to them.

Many of them signed off on compromises they already predicted would lead to conflict within generations, as it did (the civil war). As for the rest of it, I'm annoyed by your analysis and its lack of self awareness. Getting mad at you over "my country" makes no sense unless you are an alt for someone in power.

Regardless, I suggest you should read more about the debates during the founding if you care for a more nuanced perspective. Wherever you call your home, it cannot be totally immune to the same sorts of questions they grappled with, which afaik humanity has been wrestling with across cultures and across generations for all time. Have a good day

Incorrect. Why do you think they held that view in the first place? Ironic you can't seem to grasp the meaning of the quote you so smugly parroted.

voting patterns? The founders didn't want most people to vote.

Semantic games. At the end of the day if x is prioritized more than y and you want x and y to be equal you do want a relative boost in the priority of y. So fine. As I said I'm not sure they are equivalent or how this specific objection can't be applied to any other tax in a way that feels implausible. Should I get a voucher if I pack my kids lunch? Why are we "prioritizing" commerical food preparation?

Make it a progressive tax then? The point was many people can afford to help others to make society better for all. But you only want to pay taxes for what you're personally interested in? If you think stay at home needs to be prioritized in some way, as another comment mentioned, that's a separate argument. You are also relying on scenarios that don't even sound plausible. If someone can barely afford stay at home and this tax makes it that painful for them, then make it more progressive. Then again I'm not sure they are equivalent. At the end of the day a majority deciding something like this is in the common interest and you having a problem because you won't personally take advantage of it sounds like greed to me. No one should be going broke because of this tax. If you think capitalist mommy is making too much while you foot the bill then wouldn't the remedy be to tax her more? Are you worried about people who can't afford the tax or do you just resent some people for getting societal benefits while also making more than you?

So if I pack my kids lunch but other kids get a "free" lunch I'm worse off? Yes there is no "free lunch" I'm paying a tax for something I don't need. The comment you are replying to already anticipates this. How is it not the same argument? Your budget comment also puzzles me. What if my existing family budget is put under stress by the "free lunch tax" so now I'm even further away from being able to pack my own lunch? How is it different? Because it's a "new" tax? You can make the same argument for any tax then. At the end of the day are your children better or worse off if their future fellow citizens are growing up under roofs that can't afford childcare or healthcare or food? For someone that seems to know enough about costs and incentives and tradeoffs you seem to have quite a constrained view. Also, I'm curious about your waivers claim re costs because I would think given the scenario you laid out that would make the program more expensive. Your taxed for things other people use more than you. That's what society is. The point of the comment you are replying to is that people obsess over this as if they are being personally violated when really it is often just greed in the face of the common good.

As an aside, it would be curious if deepening political polarization creates a trend of blocking IPs from specific states or regions for whatever reason... perhaps in such a scenario there would be interesting relations or comparisons between the digital and physical divides...

You're missing the point entirely. The adversary in 1999 was not remotely near peer. So say arrogance there costs you only one plane, which nonetheless becomes infamous as a cautionary tale about superpower hubris. The same against China will be far more fatal. Also, fwiw conflict with China is routinely simulated by American war planners, and to put it plainly there is no longer any plausible scenario where America "wins handily" in the Taiwan strait. Your suggestion that this is even possible is therefore vaguely amusing. Maybe also look to the past decades of American war fighting. When was the last time we felt like we outright "won" a war? When against a peer or near peer? Mission accomplished?

Sounds like an interesting book, though far too many pages for a subject I have only a passing interest in. I would note given the authors affiliations I'm not sure I would ever consider it something that could "set the record straight". If there's a controversy about the program the authors backgrounds don't exactly suggest one will be getting a balanced view. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I appreciate the suggestion anyway.

Yes, and they did that because of the same arrogance alluded to in my quote.

They said the same thing about the F-117 in 1999. It was shot down by a Soviet era AA. It was said once, "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed". The same applies here. Comparing bombing Iran to a conflict with China is delusional, put plainly the capabilities of the aircraft have never actually been tested against a competent peer - when it actually matters.

Do you have any reason to attribute this to the fact they were F-35s? For comparison, how many jets were lost during "shock and awe"? Israel operates with impunity in Iran all the time, often on the ground. I'm not sure the fact they used F-35s is actually relevant here but if you have a source on that it would be interesting to read. Given the state of Iran it is hard to imagine the same could not be achieved with a last generation aircraft... it would not be surprising if by the time a peer power conflict starts manned aircraft like the F-35 will already be obsolete...

are you under the impression that the sole focus of an independent review as described in the root comment would be to investigate the personal veracity of "Participant 1"'s narration? do you alter course in your product because of single, particular user anecdote? i'm not sure what you think you are arguing against here...

yes, quality of life is a very difficult thing to measure objectively, because of the subjective component, as you state. are you under the impression the "reviews by independent experts" mentioned in the comment above the one you cited would only be meaningful if the person narrating their subjective experience was found to be outright lying? you are clearly familiar with some of the nuances, thus i'm not sure why you would not also be interested in independent reviews of the subject. his personal story is worth a lot, but it's not everything. i would think the more people reviewing it seriously, the more benefit to people like your father (and countless others)

a good point, and one that highlights the fact that people are unironically relying on "objective"/"subjective" distinctions in this thread - when this division is not necessarily a straightforward one in neurology or philosophy/language. putting a neurological implant in someone's brain doesn't strike me as an act that immediately clarifies this issue, to put it mildly. but this technology is still in its infancy. thus, the more people to "review" it, the better... doesn't mean the benefits they are giving people or the work has to stop... it just doesn't mean some skepticism isn't warranted either...

if that's the case why do you care to read about his subjective experience, at all? isn't that the point of the comment inquiring about an independent review?

if it is truly "objective" then his subjective experience is irrelevant, so your logic makes no sense. it is not necessarily incorrect to investigate or be skeptical about another's self reported "subjective" claims (never mind their "objective" ones), for the reasons the comment you were dismissive of mentioned. plus given the nature of the company one would hardly be surprised if certain facts are cherry-picked over others. if it's truly as cut and dry as you believe, then surely any independent expert will soon end up empty handed. being dismissive of such an endeavor before it has even begun feels like kool-aid sippin...

Should the government be able to blackmail credit card companies? Do you really think the credit card companies care where you spend your money? All they want you to do is spend more. They are trying to get out ahead of your own fellow citizens (and their government) who agree with more "censorship" and, at least in this regard, more state control. Unless you have a solution for this strain of American politics focusing on credit card companies is, in this situation, missing the point.

I do like bringing up the potential for dissolution. I would add just the general ways in which they profit off distorting the economy for massive private gains, often to the ruin of many individuals.

Credit has become ubiquitous, in a manner that belies its supposed purpose, at least as was originally practiced before consumers were offered and employed credit for absolutely everything.

Then again, governments and "regulated" entities are also capable of blackmail. I'm not sure these private companies would ever have an incentive to care about what you spend their money on unless governments gave them a reason to - which is why this is happening. At the end of the day you run into the same perpetual problem - you want x, some mob wants y. Good luck.

Just some feedback: Most people are going to ask about the difference between you and the incumbents. Mentioning spies in this regard - especially at this stage - even as a passing joke imo comes off as a little odd. You're pretty early in this process, and it sounds like the kind of incumbent dynamic where you should be relishing (along with improving/iterating on) the answer to the incumbent question rather than thinking of it in any way as a burden.

Fwiw your landing page seemed to do a good job in this regard.

Best of luck!

I get it and yes, you are technically correct that they are not "literally blocking" it. I just hope you can also see where I'm coming from. In context of the larger comment thread your reply felt like a nitpick that missed the point, and focused on that nitpick to the detriment of the larger point of that OP, which imo has some merit. Or at least some merit you didn't address. But I understand you are correct on this particular point. As a suggestion, maybe next time you could reply more as providing context rather than seeming to suggest their entire take was "backwards". Thanks for replying.

You don't seem to grasp the argument.

From above:

> These people will never actually ban pornography

> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay

You then say, well actually they weren't blocked by the states, they were blocked by the sites themselves to protest a bill that passed.

The issue is this clarification is totally irrelevant given the context of the above comment.

The root comment claims in this domain, the right wing is targeting "anything other than heterosexuality". Not sure what their evidence of that claim is. I would think anyone with even a basic familiarity re the right-wing American culture warrior would know this isn't the case. They are simply following the standard far right modus operandi, which is to start their cultural attack on the most vulnerable at the margins where it is easiest.

Similarly, passing age verification is essentially a strategy to enact an effective ban, because it is a demand that cannot be met and is easier to pass than an outright ban. So the comment suggesting it's not serious to suggest this is simply or _only_ about "anything other than heterosexuality" is correct, or at least, not impeached by your conclusion they have it backwards by essentially hyperfocusing on some rather irrelevant pornsite protest tactic which entirely misses the point. If anything, the fact they passed the bills after the self initiated “bans” simply bolsters the rejoinder to the root comment.

The bills still passed so what's your point? The protest failed.

You can do essentially the same thing with Next or Nuxt.js

With Next.js now it is very easy and elegant to load up data from your Django server in a React Server Component. You can also build entire static pages manually from the same API.

Here is an excerpted example from the same simple template I posted in response to an earlier comment - https://github.com/ospira/docker-django-react-example/blob/m...

If doing this as part of a production pipeline you would have to ensure some version of your Django API (hopefully the latest one) is present before deploying the Next.js app, so that the data is available for Next to do things like fully static pages.

Btw, two addendums:

1. I fixed some things in that repo, now it should work out of the box. Apologies if the initial version had some bugs, was taking it out of another project, and the first effort at cleaning it up was too hasty. Note it is still however just meant as an example.

2. You actually can run more than one container per window - see here https://code.visualstudio.com/remote/advancedcontainers/conn.... However, I opted for the double window method because I found that cleaner than toggling between in one window. In my template I assume the two windows method because it will load up the proper subfolder (django or react) of the workspace/monorepo depending on which dev container you connect to.

So I actually recently dealt with this, sharing this as hopefully it helps you.

https://github.com/ospira/docker-django-react-example

In essence, you need two instances of VSCode running connected to two separate Docker container instances. As I understand it, it's one remote container per VSCode window. Thus, I found this to be best, even though it isn't strictly speaking necessary, but it ends up feeling that way because as you said the language server integration (intellisense and extensions) will not work properly if not connected to the right container.

If you load this up in vs code it should prompt you properly given the presence of the files in `.devcontainter` dir. Having two windows in VSCode is kind of annoying at first, but I found it was actually fine, especially on macOS where tabbing to the other VSCode window (as opposed to ungrouped alt+tab on windows) was painless, and also kept me more organized not having backend and frontend code right next to each other.