2,252 karma · joined August 3, 2021
They try to get around this by charging you more after you've invested in your tools, but even then you can only go so far (though it's astonishing how far the big guys have managed to get regardless)
If anything, the core job of most software is to reliably and repeatedly do the thing a user wants. Bugs outside eof that are OK, but a software that doesn't Do The Thing is useless.
LLMs increasing bug density in exchange for more features is likely a terrible tradeoff for most software people use IMO.
Even really good DDR5 could be had for cheap; I remember paying like 300$ for 96GB of high-quality M-die hynix DDR5.
Maybe they find a buyer in a doctor, maybe they don't, but PE provides them an exit that keeps the practice operating in the community.
Many people don't really run businesses efficiently. There was an interesting video I saw recently where a sole doctor practice made a few changes to their workflow that allowed them to hire more doctors and handle 2x as many people - I would expect a PE firm would pursue similar changes that help increase the number of people they can service, increasing competitiveness and lowering prices in the long run.
I don't know how these tradeoffs interact with patient care, but I wouldn't inherently expect PE to be worse at this than any other operating model.
"More traffic" is not sufficient. I can actually sort of believe shade from an apartment building could count, but the impression I get is that is rarely a good-faith argument (and in any case it should only severely affect a few people in any new development, so you could easily justify just compensating them in some way rather than outright blocking a development.
Are you proving for some arbitrary definition of == that isn't what we commonly consider the definition? How is it logically coherent? You mean only in the sense that you say it is and you haven't provided any rules to disprove it?
It's like giving people excessive discretion. Then if you're someone they don't like (eg. a black person if you're racist), then you deal out a maximalist punishment. If they're someone you do like, you let them off and tell them not to do it again.
Policy like this is just corruption. It allows some people to exercise more rights than others, at the expense of the commons.
You're cheering for the prevention of building new housing in the most valuable, most useful part of the town. I bet it would have kept all the same retail and restaurants in the bottom too, so there would have been zero downside for anyone who actually uses the street.
Instead a bunch of people with no stake except an aesthetic preference blocked it. How on earth is that a good thing?
They may like some republican stances (say, reduced regulations and welfare spending), but despise others (Trump, wars, anti-renewable). Meanwhile they might like some democrat stances (Inclusivity, environment), but not others (high spending, rent controls, etc).
So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place where there's no good way to express your desires. I can totally understand not wanting to vote in such an environment, and disliking the government no matter what. You can't get your specific views represented because everything has been collapsed into two broad camps that average out - and as lots of research shows, no one is truly average.
(obviously it might take years for me to get good enough at something, or if you set the "arbitrary" task as something ridiculous, but lets work in good faith here and think of something the average human could do after learning about it)
If we progress to the point where an LLM instance can meaningfully learn to get better at something overtime without retraining, then I will accept that is basically AGI. Right now, they still seem to be pretty boxed into their training, even if you can prompt them to act differently.
If I can't give it an arbitrary task and have it solve that task eventually, it's not a general intelligence.
It's not a strictly bad thing - iirc spirit? Airlines? Wanted to merge with someone, got denied, and went bankrupt anyway, depriving people of any competition at all.
Dismissing it entirely is pretty hard to justify.
How does it damage the environment? By using energy? Like literally any other human enterprise?
What's wrong with it creating wealth? You don't have to spend money on it, it's none of your concern what other people do.
I earn a reasonable income, but the reality is even though I live alone and don't really think about where I spend my money finances are good. I could quite easily save a fair bit more than I currently do if I wanted to.
My experience won't align with everyone, but it is enough for me to feel somewhat dismissive of people who say life sucks. At some point, if you aren't earning enough and/or spend too much, that's on you. Some of the people I know of who complain about finances feel they should not have to care about their spending, or have "luxuries" that are actually very expensive (going out drinking alcohol is a big one where I'm at). The reality is anything that takes human Labor in a developed economy is very expensive.
In most countries with normal mortgages, raising rates fairly immediately transmits through to the rest of the economy, because it affects the mortgage market. This isn't true in America, because everyone quite reasonably is able to get these insane mortgage products with literally no downside risk - if rates go up, you don't pay more. If they go down, you refinance at minimal cost.
Agree to disagree on the tax issue. The way you've framed it is fairly inflammatory, but happy to have a discussion about it. The reality is that as much money as rich people have, the middle class have a whole lot more. Every country with large government spending has broad, high taxes on the entire population, not just the rich.
1x is plenty IMO.
Hot water heater tanks are easily one of the most obviously good applications of noon excess energy, and resistive heating elements might as well be free.
- home batteries cost more
- homeowners buying batteries are already pretty well off on average
- a large portion of the population (renters) is excluded from the policy.
- prices are falling anyway so the subsidy is just a waste of tax dollars, arguably
- grid scale batteries are more cost effective and benefit everyone via cheap prices broadly, instead of specific homeowners.
Etc. but pork barreling be pork barreling.
A satellite will serve thousands of customers, whereas a fixed line only serves one. I think 10k is also severely understating the cost per customer. There's like hundreds of metres between these houses at a minimum, and in some areas possibly Kilometers from house to house.
Or do you mean all the windows specific stuff etc, I guess I was more imaging the call stack etc.
No insult was intended XD
T2s are so good this is an objectively good tradeoff. It's not about compensating the eco player (though that does happen by extension) its about getting your whole team faster T2 mexes.
Lots of players mean more chances to get a toxic guy who doesn't recognise their own faults and blames others.
I actually just don't really agree about the assertion on player slots. If anything, the better players get the more likely they are to play a front slot, because they have an outside influence on the chances of their team winning.
The one saving grace is s&p isnt changing anything, and they were by far the biggest index.