purple_turtle

Yes, it is an excellent reason to discard it as a slop.

There is difference in taking pride of not knowing things and considering it as regrettable necessity.

> Properly budgeting and analyzing costs takes a lot of time

For family? Not really

This post seems misplaced.

Giving access to the same info to more people is reducing privacy.

I prefer to not give to even more people.

In the same way as my doctor knowns some private health info but to keep it private I would prefer to not give it to my employer.

Giving access to the same info to more people is reducing privacy.

I prefer to not give to even more people.

Some banks at least are selling customer data.

I am still waiting for something that would support your claim rather than mention something sort - of - related.

Links to materials that would support your claim.

And at least mention terms you used.

No, ones that would support your claim.

And at least mention terms you used.

Can you link any evidence supporting this claim? This term sounds like a standard-issue woo.

Can you link any evidence supporting this claim?

Your first linked page has no word "depression" on it

Note that I am not saying that "throw away regulation, always less regulation is better".

That would be asking to drop all regulations.

I am saying that regulations have cost so you should have as little as regulation as possible to achieve wanted effect.

And wanted effect often should not be literally zero of accidents or bribery or corruption. As it may be either impossible to achieve or extra side effects not worth it past certain point.

In other words minimisation of how much regulations you have should be one of targets.

Sadly, sometimes people are wrong.

This applies also to enacting monstrously stupid regulations. Or even ones that were introduced entirely as revenge or to create opportunity for corruption.

2026?

> this is a greed problem.

Also that. But overregulation makes too hard for others to compete and offer cheaper insulin.

What is the point of car that on Mondays changes colour to blue and on each first Friday of the year explodes?

If neither you not anyone else can fix it, without more cost than making a proper one?

> It's not that we never need less regulation

this would be going against

> 'we need less regulation' is never the right answer

I am not going to collect old clothes (used as rags and ready to be thrown out) for months. For start, my flat is not large enough for that.

I just throw them away with rubbish and get less supportive of people and institutions that created this law.

Less regulation is a good target.

Just not sole one.

Harm reduction (a good reason for regulation) also needs to be balanced with it.

But piles of regulation have costs - both in reduction of competitiveness, increasing expenses, reducing willingness of people to follow and support it and so on.

Regulation is bad, just it is often less bad than alternatives.

But reducing amount of regulation is a good goal.

Otherwise you end in situation where you need lawyer to understand anything, you are not allowed to throw torn socks into garbage and general population applauds people breaking law and happily support it.

> 'we need less regulation' is never the right answer

Sometimes it is. For example some countries had or have regulation that only nobles can work in specific professions or wear specific clothes or live in specific places. Some had the same but race-based.

This entire class of regulation deserved to be thrown out. And yes, at least partially there are claims how it was necessary for safety or whatever else.

There are are also some dumb taxes with bad side effects like tax on windows.

Some regulation is terrible and deserves to be removed rather than replaced or improved.

> LLM is a lookup table which tells you "if the last N tokens were s_1, s_2, ..., s_N, then the following token will be t_1 with probability p_1, t_2 with probability p_2, etc...".

No, LLM is not a lookup table for all possible inputs.

> The last 30 years have been dominated by deregulation

Maybe in USA, and not everywhere. From what I heard deregulation had not happened in USA healthcare.

And describing last 30 years in EU as dominated by deregulation is clearly wrong.

This one is about housing crisis, not "western homeless crisis".

At least in Europe it is not (yet?) causing very large scale of homelessness problem.

The problem in USA is that producing insuline is so regulated that setting up and maintaining production is obnoxiously expensive.

Note that if you cause by regulation or stupid laws something to be expensive to produce/import and then make it illegal to sell above that price - then you will get shortages.

As noone will want to produce insuline if required paperwork costs more than it's selling price.

Note that even if currently adding more regulation to solve problems caused by more regulation will not cause it, it may happen in future.

US healthcare regulations are on Nth round of that.

Existence of specific bad US regulation and overregulation caused this.

Bad EU regulations and overregulation caused other problems. For example it is illegal for me to throw old socks full of holes into trash, I am supposed to take it to recycling centre on other side of the city.

Maybe technically LLM can be converted to an equivalent Markov Chain.

The problem is that even for modest context sizes the size of Markov Chain would by hilariously and monstrously large.

You may as well tell that LLM and a hash table is the same thing.

1) being restricted to exact matches in input is definition of Markov Chains

2) LLMs are not Markov Chains

In my experience (European country) even email with magic words "clear risk to health and life" can jumpstart the process.