anon7725

"To explicitly declare that a certain class implements a given protocol, it can be used as a regular base class. In this case a class could use default implementations of protocol members. Static analysis tools are expected to automatically detect that a class implements a given protocol. So while it’s possible to subclass a protocol explicitly, it’s not necessary to do so for the sake of type-checking."

https://peps.python.org/pep-0544/#explicitly-declaring-imple...

> so I'm pretty sure the new preferred way is to explicitly use abstract superclasses... just like Java did all along (and is mandatory).

typing.Protocol is a good fit for this use case

  from typing import Protocol
  
  class HasMessage(Protocol):
      def get_message(self) -> str: ...
  
  class A:
      """Implicit (duck-typed)"""
      def get_message(self) -> str:
          return "A"
  
  class B(HasMessage):
      """Explicit"""
      def get_message(self) -> str:
          return "B"
  
  class C:
      def get_message(self) -> int:
          return 1
  
  def print_message(m: HasMessage) -> None:
      print(m.get_message())
  
  print_message(A())
  print_message(B())
  print_message(C())  # fails type check

I don’t think this captures the full story. The US has a bimodal standard of living reflected as a lower mean relative to other advanced nations.

It can be simultaneously true that immigrants to the U.S. from both advanced and developing nations both experience a higher standard of living than their countries of origin.

Immigrating to the U.S. with an advanced degree in an in-demand field: you likely will experience a higher standard of living.

Immigrating to the U.S. from a developing country without a particularly in-demand career: you likely will experience a higher standard of living.

Ours is a culture that can no longer whip the llama’s ass.

On our present trajectory, any new super intelligence will be the billionaire’s plaything. Hope is indeed needed to see how it would benefit the common person.

If the smarts came from post-training, we could show significant gains by doing that post-training again for previous generations of models. But we know that isn’t happening - effective post training is necessary but not sufficient for model performance.

You have framed things well with your short and long g term analysis.

I would add these points to negative long-term personal effects:

- potential for cognitive impairment / deficit from long-term AI use.

- lack of diversity / creativity / heterogeneity / outside the box thinking of any sort in work going forward.

> By my back of the envelope calculations, we produce something like 300kg of CO2 annually simply by breathing. I would prefer to continue to live, however.

The CO2 that you exhale came from elements that were fairly recently part of an animal or vegetable - ie part of an active and ongoing carbon cycle, rather than deposited into the ground 100M years ago and pulled out to be inserted into the system.

Carbon cycles aren't bad - they're fundamental to life on Earth, obviously. It's making the system unstable by continuous addition that causes the problem.

> there has never been one since then

There was one in 2020, granted it was the shortest on record.

What are “your tools”? Many (most?) meaningful questions cannot be answered while you stall for time on a call. Or do you just mean ask an LLM the question and regurgitate its answer?

Do you think the root cause of social/civic failures has been an inadequate policy repository and lack of a map between policy representations? If so, I have a bridge in Alaska for you to encode into your representation scheme.

> Higher taxes go to the government, and therefore the interests that have captured the government.

There is at least a chance for it to be redistributed, unlike private wealth.

Age + years of service >= 70.

61 + 51 in your example.

> I think it is important to distinguish talk intended to appease the public, that currently is very anti-US, from real policies.

It's pretty clear that governments engage in such two-sided talk at their peril going forward. This is exactly how you get populism - usually of the far-right variety, with its specific blend of parochialism, jingoism and nihilism.

Everything is written in the voice of a terminally online Twitter troll. Every single communication from the U.S. federal government should be assumed to be a lie until proven otherwise.

From the article:

> You're part of a team, you're contributing, you're also (measurably) pulling less hard than you would if the rope were yours alone

There’s a perfectly rational reason for this. Success is collective, but failure is individual.

Rewards for the success accrue to the person who represents it to the right people (usually those with the shortest path to the organization root).

For all intents and purposes, the person who gives the presentation did the work.

As someone who once spent two months reworking a system because a 4GB Oracle instance was okay, but 8GB was verboten, I agree.

This is the most insightful comment in the thread.

> That doesn't make sense for America to care about this much, given that Iran has no way to deliver nuclear weapons to it.

A nuclear armed Iran could hold oil and gas shipments in the Straight of Hormuz hostage indefinitely. It could also threaten U.S. bases and warships in the area. It could threaten regional allies with a nuclear attack.

> Are we really back in "trust me they have WMDs" territory?

Irrespective of everything else going on, it’s well established that Iran has a nuclear program in the advanced stages of development. There was a whole UN program around inspecting it.

> If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat.

> That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China.

The right kind of missiles hitting the right kind of boat could lead to a very grave escalation.

“Represented in the training data” does not mean “represented as a whole in the training data”. If A and B are separately in the training data, the model can provide a result when A and B occur in the input because the model has made a connection between A and B in the latent space.

Energy use goes up as civilization advances, and Jevon’s paradox suggests that we’ll use more energy as its cost goes down. Couple that with the need to replace some portion of the installed base of solar capacity over time and I think solar will be a growth industry for the foreseeable future.

> America used to build things too

Indeed. “Used to” is the key observation. In the wake of WW2, the U.S. had both dynamism and the ability and will to act collectively. This combination led to rising standards of living, the space program, Silicon Valley, the internet, etc.

The U.S. economy is still relatively dynamic, but the will to collective action has completely failed.

Europe can act collectively but lacks dynamism.

Which country, today, demonstrates both traits?

The civil rights acts had firm constitutional grounding in the 14th and 15th amendments.

The corollary is that literally everything that the US government communicates should be assumed to be a lie. Even normal, boring announcements from the USDA and such are communicated in the voice of a terminally-online twitter troll.

Since many people are primed for this video to confirm their worldview, it doesn't even need to be that good. It will spread like wildfire, and its debunking won't. Technically, there is no reason why this can't be done today.

> How do you cult de-program 40% of the population of the most powerful country on the planet?

If history is any guide, that doesn't happen without a substantial - existential, perhaps - exogenous shock.

> I can tell you personally that the action which most seriously affected my performance at a workplace was being denied a bereavement day because the official policy was to only allow one.

One of the things I remember most from my career was a manager "rules lawyering" about bereavement leave when my aunt passed away. Ironically, HR was very sympathetic and accommodating, and it was a non-issue with them.

I've been treated "worse" by jackass execs and managers, but always in the context of work. Someone acting in the way this manager did about a personal situation sticks with me much more than those.

> HN is doing the equivalent of (a) denying Venezuelans appreciate this, and when that fails (b) claiming they know better than Venezuelans wrt whether this is good or bad for them.

It’s very dangerous to do the “right thing” for the wrong reasons in a complex situation. This is step 1. Does anyone have faith that the Trump admin will properly execute steps 2..N?

I would have some respect if the administration announced that it would support a provisional government led by the apparent winner of the last election in Venezuela. As such it seems to be that the administration has left the existing power structure in place and established a client/patron relationship with the leadership. This is revolting.

Inflation risk.