523 karma · joined November 21, 2014
As someone who (long ago) studied philosophy of mind and (Chomskian) linguistics, it’s striking how much LLMs have shrunk the space available to people who want to maintain that the brain is special & there’s a qualitative (rather than just quantitative) difference between mind and machine and yet still be monists.
We should also recognize that, for all but the most mainstream possible questions or topics, most of the study is going to come from interest groups-- they're the ones who are interested enough to do the work to look at the data and publish their results!
If we dismiss reviews like this out-of-hand simply because they are created by an interest group, then we'll miss out on a lot of information and opportunity for reasonable discourse.
(Note that I'm not saying the parent comment is advocating this, but it did raise the point in my mind.)
https://smallfarms.cornell.edu/2020/07/solar-grazing-livesto...
Matt Might has a solution for this that I love: Don't clean & organize! Release it under the CRAPL[0], making explicit what everyone understands, viz.:
"Generally, academic software is stapled together on a tight deadline; an expert user has to coerce it into running; and it's not pretty code. Academic code is about 'proof of concept.'"
The American Cancer Society, which does a bunch of amazing things, including having "Hope Lodge" facilities near major cancer treatment centers. When we were in grad school (and had less than no money) my wife needed daily cancer treatment for 6 weeks at a hospital that was hours away from our house. She and her mother were able to stay at Hope Lodge completely free for the entire length of her treatment.
Wikpedia, which I use every day.
If so, I wonder whether it's worth adding a (politely-worded) summary at the top of the page describing why rules like these are dumb? Then the people responsible for these sites, most of whom are themselves probably not dumb but just mis- or uninformed, can learn from their mistakes.
Privacy Badger and ABP on my work (less-locked-down) Mac.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Boulevard
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Boulevard#Safety_issues...
"Many hospitals conduct nightly wealth screenings — using software that culls public data such as property records, contributions to political campaigns and other charities — to gauge which patients are most likely to be the source of large donations.
"Those who seem promising targets for fund-raising may receive a visit from a hospital executive in their rooms, as well as extra amenities like a bathrobe or a nicer waiting area for their families."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/business/hospitals-asking...
Absolutely reasonable to ask what Boeing could have done better. I'm just not sure the information about Boeing's actions contained in the article gets me all the way to "indefensible", paraphrasing another comment.
Imagine that the failure that caused the nose-down wasn't a failed AOA sensor giving bad readings to MCAS, but some other reason that _also_ wouldn't have been solved by pulling back on the yoke, but would have been by completing some later step on the checklist. Suppose the pilots didn't follow the checklist. Would that be enough information to say that Boeing is responsible?
To be sure, in this case the pilots may have followed the checklist! It may well be the case that Boeing is completely responsible! The checklist items might not have worked, or there may have been a good reason that the pilots didn't follow it, or the checklist might have been crazy, or they might not have had time to do what needed to be done, etc. There's still a whole lot that's not known (or hasn't been released) about what happened.
I'm just not sure that the current evidence, _viz_ that Boeing made an internal software change, that they didn't explicitly call it out to pilots, and that there's no difference in the actions prescribed in the event of an uncommanded nose-down pre- and post-change, is enough to say that the fault is entirely Boeing's for this accident.
So the interface didn't change, and the procedure's the same. Should Boeing and airlines update training every time they change something "under the hood", even when the procedure for pilots is the same? How about when they make software updates to already-flying models?
I certainly agree that there's waste, and more taxes leads to more waste. To your point, though, about "proportional amount of public good", I think there's a case to be made that higher tax areas do generally enjoy better services. An example is in quality of public schools, which is very important to me and my spouse.
NYC and its suburbs (including Westchester and Nassau Counties) are very high-tax areas. If you look at the US News ranking of public high school quality[0], you'll find that 42 of the top 50 public high schools in New York State are in NYC, Westchester, or Nassau; 3 more are in southern Putnam County (just north of Westchester) or western Suffolk County (just east of Nassau).
There are legitimate questions to be asked about how much signal is in USNWR's rankings, but the quality of schools is one of the things that keeps my spouse and me in the NYC metro area.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/search?st...
See also E-Trade's "Don't get mad, get E-Trade" commercials[0], which are clearly intended to give people the impression that stock trading will make them Super-Yacht rich.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHVKU2qFM7q2HuTv5RCU0...
I'm not sure I would. I'll certainly never stop using it, because I've got 15+ years in it now and the key bindings and my config are as automatic as breathing. But I wonder if the investment is worth the cost for a new user, who could just use another excellent editor that's maybe a bit less full-featured but with a drastically shallower learning curve?
The chicken tax and the "cool" factor / branding must play a role over and above the raw utility of hauling lots of people, surely?
"The company also plans to stop building several models now assembled at those plants, including the Chevrolet Cruze, the Cadillac CT6 and the Buick LaCrosse."
My spouse and I would love to move somewhere less expensive than NYC, but we just can't make it work. We're both in fairly specialized tech fields, and prioritize walkability, diversity, great schools and career growth opportunity. Outside of say Chicago, it's hard to come up with a place that checks those boxes.
This I get.
> and the ability to convincingly lie to law enforcement.
This less so. Can you elaborate?
The one thing I miss is tabs, which FFF doesn't seem to have.
I'd agree that "specialization" is a good thing when it means that educators have the training needed to most effectively deal with other-than-typical circumstances. But it may be less of a good thing when it means segregating those students into their own classes or their own schools, which I think is what GP is saying effectively happens with charter schools. Setting aside the cost argument, giving students a chance to interact with and befriend those with different backgrounds, circumstances, and abilities benefits the students and society, though it may not be reflected in standardized test scores.