cwalv

Once something becomes political, it becomes intertwined with all the other political issues they're concerned/upset about. Everyone suffers from this to some degree; to many, the only thing they really need to know to form an opinion is their chosen party's stance on an issue.

That sounds reasonable, and I don't doubt that it's part of the reason. Still, iiuc the solution to hallucination is that they can essentially train the model to recognize when it "doesn't know", and to say so in that case rather than just puke back the highest probability BS. I.e. it's a training time factor, not inference time, so it's not a fundamental cost issue, but more about priorities.

I don't use it that much, but I have noticed these AI overviews still seem hallucinate a lot, compared to others. Meanwhile I hear that Gemini is catching up or surpassing other models, so I wonder if I'm just unlucky (or just haven't used it enough to see how much better it is)

Maybe the answer to your question was subjective?

This problem is has already gotten so much better. In my experience it's no longer 10% of the time (I'd estimate more like 1%). In the end, you still need to use judgement; maybe it doesn't matter if it's wrong, and maybe it really does. It could be citing papers, and even then you don't know if the results are reproducible.

How do you feel about public transportation?

An OTP that's reused?

> This calculator[1] factors everything you listed, and the math doesn't work out for the hottest housing markets

That's a great calculator; I remember using it like a decade ago. And while it includes all factors they listed there are a few it doesn't:

1. If interest rates go down, you can refinance, but if they go up, the inflation and appreciation values likely will as well, but your rate is fixed, for (up to) 30 yrs (!!)

2. It's relatively easy to make improvements while you live there (and capture increased value when you leave)

3. The calculator assumes that the down payment and cost difference vs renting would be invested, which is fine but ignores psychological realities that prevent this more often than not

Also:

> The best hedge is to also "invest" in something that has value to you. Like bricks / house.

The suggestion was mentioned as a 'hedge'. The point being: you don't know what the values entered into the calculator will really end up being. Having some costs locked in can help with concerns around cash flow (and shelter costs are usually a significant percentage of costs overall). It's an "also 'invest'" strategy, so there's a whole lot not included in the calculator here as well

> I did a comp science degree, so I can't speak for the liberal arts.

By 'liberal arts' I meant the common 4 year, non-vocational education. My major was CS too, but well over half of the time was spent on other subjects.

> I get that you cant imagine this playing out. To those interested only in the degree, it's unimaginable

I can easily imagine what you describe playing out. I just wouldn't call it 'sucking the marrow' (unless you were equally avid in all your classes, which time likely would not permit).

But as you allude to in your last point, the system isn't really designed for that. It's nice when it does effectively support the few who have developed the interest, and have extra time to devote to it, as it did for you.

I'd rather see systems that were designed for it though.

> there is 0 way of telling if the work is real or not, at which point why bother?

I might argue you couldn't really tell if it was "real" before LLMs, either. But also, reviewing work without some accompanying dialogue is probably rarely considered a joy anyway.

> However, while 90% will miss the opportunity right there in front of them, 10% will grab it and suck the marrow.

Learning is not just a function of aptitude and/or effort. Interest is a huge factor as well, and even for a single person, what they find interesting changes over time.

I don't think it's really possible to have a large cohort of people pass thru a liberal arts education, with everyone learning the same stuff at the same time, and have a majority of them "suck the marrow" out of the opportunity.

This kind of "perf review" hacking works ~everywhere; how well it works correlates with how entrenched the organization is (i.e., how hard it is for new players to disrupt).

You don't have to play the game the same way to work there. But it helps to accept that others will play it, and manage your own expectations accordingly.

I agree that on intrinsic characteristics, it makes more sense than gold. But most people do not even think about what 'money' is, and as with anything there's a lot of inertia in established practices. Esp. when a key aspect of money is salability, any alternative has a very steep hill to climb.

Gradually, then suddenly

> Why would any government want this a feature?

As an issuer, they wouldn't. But nobody can issue Bitcoin anyway, so that's clearly irrelevant.

As a reserve, it would be the same ones who buy gold, for the same reason.

> But I am personally just so so grateful the timeline lined up for me.

I know the feeling. We still have access to the engineering thought processes responsible for some of the most amazing software feats ever accomplished (thru source repo history and mailing lists), just with access to the Internet. Of course there's a wealth of info available for free on the web for basically any profession, but for software engineering in particular it's almost direct access to world class teams/projects to learn from.

> but would be immediately turned off by this pervasive sense that "the way to do things now" is seemingly inseparable from a credit card number and monthly charge

To be effective you still need to understand and evaluate the quality of the output. There will always be a certain amount of time/effort required to get to that point (i.e., there's still no silver bullet).

> But I guess we don't need the passion anymore anyway, its all been vectorized!

We're not running out of things that can be improved. With or without these tools, the better you get, the more of the passion/energy that gets directed at higher levels of abstraction, i.e. thinking more about what to solve, tradeoffs in approaches, etc. instead of the minute details of specific solutions.

I've noticed this tendency in myself and thought about the 'why' a lot, and I think it comes down to subconsciously factoring in the cost of lock-in, or worse, lack of access to fix/improve a tool I've come to rely on

Setting the desired temp is 'auto mode'

Depending on the model year, it may have a stalk for turn signals. The same stalk has a button on the end to trigger the wipers (rarely needed because they're auto-sensing), and then wiper speed/mode can be adjusted with the dials on the steering wheel. Heat likewise has an 'auto' mode that does what you'd expect.

I have a Model Y and a Toyota Highlander (so not just accustomed to the hostility), and I prefer the hands-off approach in the Tesla. No reason to lie.

I'm not sure how common this is, but I would guess most people experience it to some degree.

I've worked remotely since 2013, and love the convenience, but still need to get out from time to time. I've noticed this in an office setting as well. After ~4 years at my first job, every day in the same room and with the same ~10 people, I noticed that the change in atmosphere at my 2nd job (which had many/varying people in proximity) made it easier to focus.

I don't know if it's that people are there as much as it is a change of scenery, but when a place is bustling it makes it feel like it's constantly changing.

There's also a non-zero chance you'll die before year 20. I agree with the premise that seeking financial independence should be a significant factor in career/life decisions, but if you would be filled with regret by finding out it will be cut short at year 18, you're too singularly focused.

> ... (IIRC)

This is easy to test. Just disable your wifi and try it out

I've encountered 1 in ~20 years. I don't even remember what it was, but I remember being shocked when I tracked it down and it actually was a compiler bug

One of the nice things about bitwarden in particular is that they make it easy to self host (and there's vaultwarden which is even easier). There are tradeoffs, but lockin risk is minimal

> I’m sorry that you feel that shallow and uninformed opinions need to be coddled

I'm not saying any opinions need to be coddled. I'm saying that while you may interpret your interactions as 'eviscerating', I doubt if others interpret it that way.

> the goal isn’t to eviscerate that opinion. That is the outcome

Are you sure that's the outcome?

> If getting hammered with difficult questions in response is too much to handle, maybe it’s time to reevaluate them

Right.

Vaultwarden doesn't have all the paid features.

> albeit you are putting a single point of failure on all of your secure info.

Depends on what failure mode you're talking about.

If you mean "I won't be able to access things when their service is down", that's not entirely accurate, because the database is synced to clients, so you just can't connect a new client or add/update entries, but existing entries are accessible.

If you mean "everything will be compromised if their service is hacked", that's not quite accurate either, because the encryption key to the database isn't stored on their servers (things are only ever decrypted on the client).

If you mean "any compromise is all/nothing", this is kindof true, but can be mitigated by keeping separate vaults, so that your most sensitive items are not kept with the ones you need routinely.

Or maybe you're thinking of some other failure mode ...

If your goal is to 'eviscerate' an opinion, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't engage. If the objective of a debater is to get the other side to simply shut up, they're missing the real value of debate. They might think they've 'won the debate' by getting others to stop talking, but in reality they'll keep thinking the way they do, and just exclude you from the conversation.

You'll only learn how they really think when you see election outcomes, or which side they're standing on when it's 'ok' to dissent, and by then it's too late.

> Don't forget, a percentage of that GDP increase is just inflation.

By design, GDP measurements are adjusted for inflation, unless you're looking at 'nominal GDP' (which nobody does because it's pointless).

> Most people, as they get richer, want to have services increase, as they can afford to pay more

This makes sense. But I'm not sure how many people believe that they're getting what they pay for, esp when it's not actually paid for, but financed

Agree .. but my point is that people will still care, on principle. Throw in any kind of cut, or esp. a helicopter payment, and the effect would be shock and awe

> Inflation. What paying workers costs.

GDP without qualification is 'real GDP', not 'nominal GDP', i.e it's already adjusted for inflation. I agree that costs need be adjusted for inflation