scotu
scotu on Hacker News
the expectation is that we won't be prompting this models the way we do now down the road. As in: prompting is the command line of LLM, at some point we'll get the equivalent of a GUI (either because we can be clueless on how to prompt because the LLM is so good, or it's so good at eliciting your requirements, or because there is no prompt at all and you interface with the LLM completely differently)
You could foresee that under the covers there is always going to be some prompting but it's going to be performed rarely by few people?
Same, for example Noise engineering
https://noiseengineering.us has 2 lines of eurorack synthesizer modules which are each built on the same hardware and they let you swap firmwares (change your delay module firmware to the distortion module firmware, your drum synth firmware to a compression effect firmware...).
(Also you can write your own fw)
> changing sexuality
The sexuality is not "changing" significantly, what changed is that it's getting less dangerous to 1. realize that you are not straight 2. not be straight 3. tell people (including polls) that you are not straight...
By having homosexuality violently oppressed, ostracized and ridiculed in the past, and slowly reversing that attitude towards it? People were literally criminals for loving people of the same sex...
I suppose I was thinking the original comment referred to the concept of metaverse, not FB's product. Then my question was: do companies have to colonize something that doesn't have scarcity and fake it so that they can profit?
why does there need to be profit where there is no natural scarcity?
google "sucks" because ads. It might have other problems, but when you can buy your competitor name as a keyword ad and on mobile you need to scroll 1+1/2 screens to get to maybe the 1st organic result and the ad is barely different from the organic, you end up with a sucky search engine, no matter the algorithm.
The competitor website is not a slightly suboptimal result for the query: it's literally the wrong result if I'm not adding "alternative" to the search query. I'm sorry.
aside from the fact that as others have pointed out there is more to firefox than the engine (though I wish I could have that too) such as firefox sync and a UI that better suits my taste, it also signals interest in using a different browser which hopefully will push apple to allow full 3rd party web browsers at some point.
one would assume usps would have the best data regarding residential addresses, so I assume "where you live" is not a residential address. Part of the reason they are delivering to residential addresses (and no "to the local post office") is to limit the orders by household, and avoid scalpers reselling those tests.
Obviously ideally they should be limiting the orders by person, but without national id and with scalpers ready to make a penny wherever they can we cannot have nice things.
friend, are you seriously going back to the beginning of the thread and trying to say California is bad, then tax cuts are good? Are you stuck in a loop? do you need help?
I responded to this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29845491
Current policy discussion doesn't change the result presented in the article, the only thing I've been discussing.
> your punitive tax increases
again, never even talked bout INCREASES, only stopping cuts. Do you know the difference between not cutting and increasing? If you do are you just trying your hand at fearmongering? Nah... you seem the kinda folk who would only argue in good faith.
If it makes no difference either way, then let's finally stop those tax cuts and prove that it doesn't make any difference! Love me some common ground.
Just one thing tho:
> Your point sounds like, no tax cuts because my slogan says so
ehm, nope. I don't have a slogan, I have some research (the original post https://academic.oup.com/ser/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ser... ) that contradicts the 90s slogan that still is used today to justify cutting taxes. So hopefully this and more peer reviewed studies will put the practice justified by the 90s slogan to rest.
Buddy, this thread is about the long running art of "vote for me, I'll cut taxes for the rich. What you say? You are not rich? No worries, the rich will make sure those cuts help you out as well" and whoever believes it. It makes no logical sense, but people believe it. The article at the top seems to point to those cuts not trickling down.
It's funny because it's not even about increasing taxes, it's just about the CUTS. You are going to be ok, don't be scared...
we got it, you don't like SF government. You don't have to manage tax money like SF does only because you decide not to do rich tax cuts. Again, it's a false dichotomy.
And the fact that SF government doesn't work doesn't negate that tax cuts for the rich don't trickle down, so why should the 99% support these cuts if they are not going to benefit from them?
I don't want you to vote against your interests, I want all others to vote in favor of theirs (against politicians that sell the tax cuts as "trickle down economics")
I hope nobody reading this actually falls for your weaksauce argument... You are literally using the false dichotomy logical fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma again, those are not the only two options:
you say:
> I used to believe taxes were a good way to redistribute wealth
and then, you don't believe that works because:
> I moved to San Francisco and saw how a welfare super state prioritizes its spending
So you are suggesting that the ONLY other possible option when the rich are taxed is that those taxes are mismanaged, but that is just not true: certainly there are varying degrees of "mismanagement" possible. In particular some of those mismanagement scenario might still result in better outcomes for less wealthy.
Given your other comments I'm sure you are already thinking: "who even cares about the less wealthy" but that seems to be the topic of the discussion, the original post is about how tax cuts don't result in "trickle down", which is how they are marketed and sold to the less wealthy.
false dichotomy, even if you believe SF spends money wrong, that doesn't justify the tax cuts for the rich
in the fountain pen world we call the "spread out" effect "feathering" I always thought it was a cool name :)
Agreed. This comes down to lack of power to push a system onto it's potential users, mozilla didn't have a userbase large enough nor could incentivize 3rd parties to force onto their users. You could argue if the ux was good it would have just succeeded, but I think that's bs. Funds are the number one predictor of success of anything.
My worry with the blockchain is that now it has VCs that are going to pump so much funds in it to keep it spinning and force everybody to use it because you need that service, and now (in the future) it's only provided through the blockchain (because the alternative off-chain company cannot raise funds so it doesn't exist, it fails, or it's a worse experience).
I had the same thought. Imagine listing all blockchains in tiny icons you scroll sideways. I suppose that can be done a lot better, but still, who decides which blockchains are included and which are not?
yeah, I'd say my description could be pretty similar. But when it comes down to sparse descriptions, I think memory also has a role. My memory is not fantastic, so I might have just dropped the memory of eye colors, unless that came up a few times for some reason for me to fix that memory.
But thinking about coming up with an unknown, generic face (GAN style, if you will): I cannot see it. Or something simpler, an apple: very foggy visual+takes a lot of effort to keep seeing the vague blurry image I might be able to come up with.
I would start with the fact that not much in the world is either one thing or another, so also with aphantasia I don't think you either "have it" or you don't. One might have varying degrees of it. I feel I can almost visualize a simple shape like a square, but a face is something I'm sure I cannot visualize.
Then I'd say, in my self-diagnosed experience, I can describe things I remember, maybe not in painstaking detail but I can. I'm not able to see an image of the same thing if I close my eyes and try to imagine it.
I feel like the difference is, I can recognize your face if I see it again, but if I need to recall what you look like I get a list of features written in words out of my brain, not an image.
can't the justification for the management fee (employee doing the accounting etc) be just replaced by centralized software though? What does a blockchain bring?
yeah, collective bargaining never does any good /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargainingLast week tonight on union busting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8
When a union does not work or is corrupt, we fix the union, we don't give away the collective power to the opposing side of the negotiation: oh no, my lawyer is not doing my best interest he's only trying to rake up the fees! you know what? I'll let my opponent's lawyer represent me in court instead!
this is literally ads.. and we saw how well that works (for say Facebook)
ok, so what is the problem? Participate in it if it needs to change direction or join a different one if that option is available.
The problem at hand is that 100 people are forced to fend for themselves against a company when they could act as a block and have leverage. One problem at a time
what a boring argument. Also wrong. I would put a lot of money on "you didn't a/b test collective bargaining with your own negotiation" because it's simply impossible, so you don't really know if that's true.
Also most workers are not in a job with a candidate shortage (and candidate shortages don't last forever, better have a union while you have the power to make it happen then when you become a throwaway widget for your company)
the point of the union is better outcomes for the workers, not for the customers
disclaimer, I'm not an expert or a scholar, I just saw the effect that our society has and I'm trying to understand.
Things are complicated but: men are in charge "correct" definition (I think), superior to women is just the justification it gives for the subjugation of women.
The thing is, not all men are in charge (nor they can be), and all men are the same, so the hierarchy cannot be 2 levels: are you not interested in the ball games? down a notch; don't care to prevaricate anybody for your success? down a notch; wanna talk about feelings? and so on. (oh, bonus: like male supremacy, white supremacy is the justification for keeping non-whites down a few notches).
I'd say it's crystal clear that the patriarchy generates a system of oppression, and men are oppressed in it as well (strict definition of what makes you a real, worthy man) (amounts of oppression may vary, men on average experience less oppression than women, ask your doctor..ahem).
I'm not sure you got your idea of what feminism is from the correct source, because "men who provide nothing have no value" to me this seems like the patriarchy.