What a load of rubbish... Your entire argument hinges on what you consider 'fair compensation' and your value judgement about energy cost. Guess what--living your life and using resources is not unethical
Each section has a clear heading. If you don't care about a section, all you have to do is scroll a little bit. No one is forcing you to read the "about me" section.
Some people actually enjoy reading about tools, rather than just looking at it from an entitled viewpoint of "what can I do to get this running as fast as humanly possible while reading as minimal words as possible". This is a tool that someone else wrote that you get to use for free, so stop whining and let them be free to express themselves as they see fit.
Right, let's just sit around in our tents in the dark and try not to move or speak unless absolutely necessary. Moving is not always essential, and has a caloric cost, which means food consumption. Are you sure being on this site right now is actually necessary? In fact, why bother being alive at all?
Yeah, have fun with that. I'm going to enjoy my life!
> Thus I'm suggesting that it can be justifiable to bomb a hospital or school in which enemy combatants are launching attacks from, yet also justifiable to do an act of violence on enemy taxpayers + potential conscripts in general.
Sorry, but no. Justified by who? Do you think it is justifiable to attack civilians?
And the explanations also don't even resolve anything. "OK, then where did God come from?" or "OK, then where did the simulation come from?". I just don't see the point.
Perhaps, but other things that should be followed (such as compliance) are handled by other teams, even though every team should strive to be compliant. Maybe the difference is that one has actual legal ramifications, while the other doesn't yet? I suppose Meta could get sued, but that is true about everything.
They also get problems wrong, in the most dumb way possible. I've tested it out many times where the LLM got most of the more 'difficult' part of the problem right, but then forgot to do something simple in the final answer--and not like a simple error a human would make. It's incredibly boneheaded, like forgetting to apply the coefficient it solved for and just returning the initial problem value. Sometimes for coding snippets, it says one thing, and then produces code which does not even incorporate the thing it was talking about. It is clear that there is no actual conceptual understanding going on. I predict the next big breakthroughs in physics will not be made by LLMs--even if they have the advantage of being able to read every single paper ever published, because they cannot think.
So disheartening. It's insane that in the US that public officials aren't held accountable for basically defrauding the public, like a banana republic. Worst of all, most people don't even care. I don't even recall orgs like Fight for the Future even trying to hold anyone accountable for this.
Remember during the public commentary about removing it, there were millions of automated messages claiming to be pro-removal? What ever happened with that? Did anyone ever get in trouble?
Try reading the rest of the review and you will see multiple explanations for why things are not a good idea. I don't even think your cherry picked example is that repetitive. It sounds like a normal conversation to me.
Your review doesn't take the time to explain why something is a bad idea though. I didn't think his tone was that bad. I think it depends on how you imagine the conversation in real life. I would prefer to have my review be blunt but instructive
I used Delphi in the 90's and early 00's, and really loved how simple it was to create desktop applications. I tried to get back into Pascal via Lazarus a few years ago, but was just very turned off by Pascal itself. The conventions just differ so much from other more popular languages that I use for work now, and there just isn't the same level of stack overflow questions/answers to make it easy to pick up. I guess with ChatGPT, it should be a lot easier to pick up now, so maybe I should give it another go.
Ah I wasn't talking about "Trusted Platform Module", I was talking about the technical product/project manager job, which tends to create meetings and various distractions for developers
The "Friend Activity" screen is also pretty much non-functioning. We had the ability to see what our friends were listening to in various other apps decades ago (usually via some plugin)
> I don't think people should have right to be forgotten, just like they shouldn't have the right to be killed by someone or right to be sold to slavery.
I don't see your logic at all. The premise is something which the person is seeking, and your examples are things the subject would not want (to be killed or sold into slavery). I understand the rest of what you're saying, though.
That's actually not a terrible idea... depending on if people ask questions or if you have extra time while presenting, the ability to take a small detour would be pretty cool
I was wondering about that myself... It also gave me the willies when he was using the table saw cutting those tiny little strips with his fingers so close to the blade!
I think you will have to accept that you won't have time to sit down and grind leetcode or work on a project for very long. You might have only a few minutes to dedicate each day. I would see if you can find 15 minutes here and there, like the morning, lunch, and night. I bet you might be surprised at how much you can accomplish on a side project because you can think about it throughout the day, and then use your 15 minutes to code it up. Also, try and cut back at work... not getting roped into extra work and setting boundaries is also a skill. Let the younger devs cut their teeth on some issues. You might seem slightly rude at first, but once people understand you have boundaries, they will accept it. If they don't, then it's time to move on to someplace that does.
At the end of the day, I think that you must respect a person's autonomy to listen to what they choose and to make up their own minds, even if they don't come to the conclusions that you want them to. Advocacy and change are ongoing processes. The real game over scenario comes with the government legally stifling dissent
Restricting speech can lead to censorship and the suppression of dissenting voices, potentially undermining democratic principles. Determining what content should be restricted is subjective and can be susceptible to abuse, causing bias and political manipulation. History shows that limitations will expand beyond their original intent, stifling legitimate criticism (examples include McCarthyism, Patriot Act, Great Firewall of China). Instead of relying solely on government intervention, promoting media literacy, fact-checking, and responsible journalism can be more effective in combating misinformation while preserving essential democratic values. The temptation for authority figures to abuse their authority is too great.