foolswisdom

I really don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing about commercial use in section 11 (nor does the language you quoted above appear anywhere in the Searching "business" and "commercial" makes it easy to verify this).

What is says there is

> Evaluation and Additional Services. In some cases, we may permit you to evaluate our Services for a limited time or with limited functionality. Use of our Services for evaluation purposes are for your personal, non-commercial use only.

In other words, you're not allowed to trial their services while using the outputs for commercial purposes.

Why? It's not obvious that an employee works 2080 hours, for example, because they take vacation (or work extra), so charging a 2100th of salary doesn't cover vacation benefit. Also, the employer will pay part of health insurance, and that isn't included in the salary number, so why would it be covered by a calculation from the salary.

When I read

> My rule of thumb as a contractor is to take the hourly rate x2100 to get an equivalent full-time salary plus benefits, 401k, vacation, etc.

I thought you meant to include everything on top of salary. Reading it again after this thread, maybe you meant to this is the calculation for hourly from full time salary, and then you need to also do ("plus") a calculation for everything else.

Seems like it was originally CC-BY-NC.

Can you tell us more about the phoning home?

This is also in line with skrebbel's observation in this thread that the phrase indicates a focused attempt.

The primary goal of big companies is (/has become) maintaining market dominance, but this doesn't always translate to a well run business with great profits, it depends on internal and external factors. Maybe profits should have actually gone down due to tarrifs and uncertainty but the big companies have kept profit stable.

> It does appear that this is part of a site-wide refactor where some material got lost because the same truncation is visible in the annotation page

You mean that if you already assume it wasn't malicious, there must be a problem that affected multiple pages because the source material in the build somewhere got lost.

Power is power when it is exercised, and power can be exercised when people think you have the power. Overly formalizing things and ignoring how they play out is why congress is today a dysfunctional body, for example. See also here for an example in practice https://prototypingpolitics.substack.com/p/dead-letter-live-...

Why not? Congress is meant to be a check on the other branches of government (though the filibuster rule / partisan omnibus bill system has degraded its collective will, which is why they won't do anything), so pre-emptively removing the powers of congress from the list sounds like a power grab. It's not like it's something completely irrelevant. Same for the limitations of government listed there.

Besides, the thing about organizations is that they encourage behaviors. A big corporation encourages different behaviors than a startup, and different company cultures can also encourage / optimize for different things. There's also a reason why we do expect ultimate responsibility to rest with leaders.

It's worth noting that the METR paper that found decreased productivity also found that many of the developers thought the work was being sped up.

It's difficult to fix because the incentive is to make sure it has the answer, not to give it lots of questions to which there are known answers but have it answer "I don't know" (if you did that, you'd bias the model to be unable to answer those specific questions). Ergo, in inference, on questions not in the dataset, it's more inclined to make up an answer because it has very few "I don't know" samples in general.

Well, meat wasn't mentioned, unless fish counts.

What setting is this? I can only find "Enable machine learning powered autofill suggestions" which seems to have defaulted to on.

That's because it's obvious due to effects other than the one you're trying to observe. Which is of course the case when you're dealing with psychedelics (and of course many other drugs).

Do you mind picking to some of these? I did a quick Google patents search but didn't find anything.

> Americans can either abide by them or get out of our market.

I think GP was talking about Americans running companies.

People (especially people who don't have a lot of hands on tech experience, or students who also aren't into building things) get the sense that writing software requires learning a lot of arcane tools. And the idea is to promise that anyone who can write a specification should be able to make software (yes, handwaving away the learning to specify well, which is a real skill with many dependent skills). This was the promise of no-code, and then they realized that the no-code system (in addition to usually being limited in power) is actually complex and requires specialized learning, and more of that the more powerful the system is. The LLM will replace SWEs approach is another take on that, because you don't need to learn a system, you prompt in natural language, and the model knows how to interface with the underlying system so you don't have to. In that sense, vibe coding is already the culmination of this goal (despite weaknesses such as maintainability issues).

I've seen it written that the main reason managers tend to want to get rid of SWEs is because they don't understand how to interface with them. Using an LLM solves that problem, because you don't need a nerd to operate it.

> I don't think the news thing would surprise anyone either.

People who you'd expect to realize this still read the news acknowledging everything they're till they get to a specific domain the news covers. A la Gell-Mann Amnesia.

The solution to that would be to force companies within the EU market to compete with each other (fair competition laws), just that idea is less popular than the first winner in a market ensuring they stay dominant (because it serves the interest of those who just got power). Same reason why big tech rules EU in the first place.

Need to submit selfies? I don't recall submitting selfies.

I own stocks, all I had to do was fill in the forms on freetaxusa.com based on the forms the brokerage gave me. Just look for non zero fields on the brokerage forms, and fill out the matching box.

If you mean something more sophisticated tax-wise, then I'm sure direct file wouldn't support it either?

Regarding the sim card, I assume that's about two factor codes? IIRC I always logged in through a code received by email.

I figure that the response uses ascii escape sequences to control the terminal (and that curl is just piping the response to the terminal).

Is there a reason you'd need to do so? What is freetaxusa.com missing that direct file gives you (other than the fact that direct file is free and supported by the government itself)?

That doesn't take away from the OP's point (and OP didn't specify what ping ponging looks like, could be the same as you're describing), you are still iterating based on the results, and updating the prompt based on issues you see in the result. It grates on a human to switch back and forth between those attempts.

The problem is that the business model is that when you outsource compliance (in this case that might be catching cheaters), the important thing is to be able to say that everyone did their best, and you don't necessarily need to do your best to say that.

Because you don't want the other side (political party) to do the same thing. The US congress has relatively recent rules designed to actually prevent this from happening, and rather keep everything in reconciliation bills. Which obviously is a great way to hobble our legislative branch. But that's the point, no one wants the other side to try their hand at being a normal legislature. Which is part of why you end up with courts (and now the executive) wielding more power, because congress is effectively weaker and less nimble/responsive than it should be.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_State...>

It's good that there are checks, but the core point remains that nimbleness is required for effectiveness. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm observing that the courts are slow, and that the same logic (slow is good) can indicate that is a good thing, which is why I take issue with general application of the concept without limiting context.

True, but at the same time, "Justice delayed is justice denied"[1]. An excessively slow justice system means that you need substantially more resources (money, and time living under the uncertainty of the outcome) to deal with it, which is part of why the threat of court action against you from a large corporation (or another entity with deep pockets) is so concerning. I know someone who was in court defending against a civil suit for ten years, and the fact that someone is litigious and able to sue is a much larger threat than it should be.

Sure, there's checks and balances, and those are good, but it's ridiculous when we allow cases to drag on and then normalize it.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_den...>

You're confusing two different things. 1 the court determined that apple subverted the original injunction, and ordered that it comply immediately (specifically calling out all the ways apple was getting around the injunction previously). 2 the court said that to issue a fine so that apple loses whatever money it gained by non-compliance would be considered a criminal matter (unless it becomes clear that there's no other way to force apple to comply with 1 above) even though it may be appropriate, and as such it is beyond the scope of what the court could order in its own, and the court refers the matter for criminal prosecution.

So this change is just apple complying with 1.