foolswisdom

Marketing people like the features they're getting, and Google and Meta are dominant, so big that they're the default, in the same way that we talk about github being the default option, and "no one ever got fired for choosing IBM / (big tech company of your choosing)". I wouldn't dream of saying they should choose something else, without researching and guaranteeing that nothing they'd ever want from GA (and they may not know everything they'll want in the future right now) is missing in the alternative. In a role (marketing) that's completely out of my wheelhouse. So I don't even bother.

Depends on exactly how the project is managed. Older python tooling (`pip` module) doesn't have a native mechanism to differentiate between the spec (direct dependencies) and freeze (all dependencies, including transitive).

Given it was older code, were you not able to use an older version of pysimplegui that was freely available?

In other words, the set of github core services has expanded because you don't use third party tooling for some of those services anymore.

The important part was the following paragraph(s) that explained why this coupling is a compelling problem. It's not the same as just having a platform API.

This reminds of the conversation the other day about the deleted production database at railway. "this person obviously didn't follow best practice of being hyper distrusting of LLM agents", and the response "yeah but every company is marketing it as safe. someone is gonna fall for it".

Or not, because telling the agent is misbehaving may predispose it to misbehaving behavior, even though you point told it so to tell it to not behave that way.

I remember this discussed when a similar issue went viral with someone building a product using replit's AI and it deleted his prod database.

Because including it in a plan results in un-metered usage?

Personally, as a developer, I interact with figma to use designs made by designers. So a portion of that userbase probably isn't going anywhere?

There have been stories about people with heavy internet traffic (generally media streaming I think) being more or less shut down unless they upgrade their cloudflare plan (to enterprise I guess). Some were posted on HN in the past.

The jury in this case is required to rule by preponderance of evidence (= more likely than not given the evidence). One of the economic experts calculated this number as being overcharged based on internal ticketmaster documentation.

Cases aren't always about the actual problem, they're about what you can prove in court.

I think cynicism is deserved just from observing Dario's remarks.

I would really appreciate if rust analyzer was faster, actually. It feels even worse with the fact that you need to save the file before it updates the type checking (though I assume it's because it's too slow to feel smooth if you do it while typing?).

It's not a single page.

Probably the first time I'm saying this, but this site appears heavily AI written.

You asked how a price cut translates to raising prices everywhere, and the parent comment answered. Though even without the further raising of prices for the competitors, the effect of many such agreements is that the competitors have a harder time competing, some shut down, and now the Walmart can also charge more because there's less competition.

Why is a council of seven better for the executive branch?

> The way America was designed may have been pretty novel / innovative at the time but we've learned so much since then about how to build better democracies.

Well, a lot of dysfunction in government is the result of later evolution, whether evolution of circumstances or of government.

As an example, the combination of senate filibuster (which was around from the earliest days) with the reconciliation workaround (which is pretty recent) results in omnibus bills, which is a well-known driver of partisanship (because you don't talk to the other party at all in order to pass your bill on the floor), and also has significant consequences to individual responsibility (for the same reason, that omnibus bill must pass for your party to do anything, so you can't be faulted for voting for it, and instead you look for carve outs for your interests. If you do decide to hold up the whole bill like the freedom caucus tried, then you get everyone against you and you will eventually fold).

This also has repercussions that for things that can't go through reconciliations, just because the usual way of doing things involves more party dependence (than it would to pass bills another way). This of course also gives more power to those running the party within the chambers of congress.

My point is that things evolve, and people tend to try to explain the current state of things with reference to the 18th century, and while I definitely believe we should evolve systems to be better, we shouldn't ignore evolution that's already occurred.

It's also possible that OP means short term savings kept for circumstances like these, and long term investments bear more cost (e.g. keeping money in a money market fund vs in stocks has different tax implications when you take the money out).

> It's clear from the report I linked that we cannot assume that high school graduates can do elementary school math.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily assume that 100% of anyone with a degree has mastered what the degree is for. So to me the takeaway is that ~90% have mastered the math. And so in terms of the original comment, not necessarily do we need them all to go to undergraduate.

It's probably a weighted average, as described earlier in the article.

Part of the problem is that many of the issues are not really critical, no?

The argument is that the need for abstraction doesn't mean we must reuse an existing concept. We should be able to talk about corporations as entities and talk about what laws or rights should apply, without needing to call them people.

> Nike’s Project Amplify is the world’s first powered footwear system for running and walking,

So this is straight up false?

The nature of a free market is that someone wins the competition, and the winner is then happy to figure out ways to prevent anyone from competing at all (this kind of action doesn't require a complete winner either, but I'm focusing on a thought experiment here).

Ergo, if you care about maintaining a free market, then you care about limiting what kind of moves you can make in the free market, in order to preserve a free market. A truly free market with no rules has an end state where it is not a free market, more like a much more sophisticated version of the nobles of the land owning everything. So we declare many activities that make it difficult for others to compete that are not simply about manking a better product, "anti-competitive" and illegal.

Wait, this actually happens?

I actually came here expecting this to be a language model application of that recursive reasoning paper.

As noted by sibling comments, the arm of the Healthcare company that wons the doctor's office wants to collect as much as possible, while the insurance arms are anyway capped at how much they can make. Incentives (conflict of interest) are towards paying more.

You make it sound like the newspapers/companies are un-culpable for that effect. I believe it to be the case because I've seen cases were a newspaper presents a narrative as fact when those involved know very well it's just someone's spin for their own benefit. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect>.

We don't know at all that AI will actually make Google search moot.

> Section 11 point 4

You must be looking at something other than the terms of service you linked, because section 11 has no point numbering (and just in case, the fourth paragraph of section 11 says nothing of the sort).