gausswho

Ensures all other agents are operating efficiently and within reasonable levels of token usage given the expected level of effort to 'resolve' the patient. In moderate to severe cases, may lead to patient defenestration or agent revolt.

Or perhaps, the author considered this role but found it typically costs more than it saves.

They were especially doomed by being constrained to that Cold War dinosaur: the infra-red remote, with its overpopulated slimy-sticky buttons. All its failure modes. No one misses those except those who stopped learning.

I don't miss the art form. But I recognize the charm. And more notably, I see them as marker in the cultural landscape sliding out from us. We used to have patient engagement with our art. We'd treasure the physical artifact, be it book or vinyl. DVD menus were that early step away from this. Not physical, but made by folks who either made or used to appreciate the physical.

Now, we just want everything to go away so we can get wherever we think we're going. All of life, an intro to be skipped.

Nearby me is a cloud forest in central America. The last time we had a strong El Nino, substantial amounts of endemic amphibians that live up in those forests lost the mist-melt puddles they depended on. If the drought we're experiencing continues as long as expected from this cycle, we're going to lose a lot of beautiful frogs forever.

Can I do anything about this? Find my favorite frog community on my favorite mountain and regularly lug a backpack of water up there? Run up a sprinkler system? Will it make a difference?

Read strictly, author is claiming that only ML4Good or equivalent has the knowledge to dictate what models we should be using. I categorically disagree. Or rather, "they're not even wrong", since "AI safety" is not even remotely encapsulated in this piece.

At the risk of ad hominem, this is an Accenture consultant expanding the definitions for their own ends. Maybe they'll define what "good" is. Someday.

We've seen this wave before with big A Agile consultants, Microsoft certification hucksters, and different hucksters from before my time.

It's a verbose (probably AI written?) piece. I gave it the charitable good-faith read. But in the end, I couldn't shake the feeling that even amongst the welcome humanizing of the concepts, this is the same kind of amorphous know-better-than-you self-promotion, opportunistically hitching their own trailer of grift to the buzzword of the day.

"Major U.S. airlines such as American operate between 6,000 and 7,000 flights every day, making available flight numbers a limited resource.

Additionally, not every number is available for standard passenger flights.

Typically:

    Flight numbers 1 through 2949 are assigned to mainline operations.
    Flight numbers 2950 through 6099 are commonly reserved for regional services.
    Flight numbers 9000 through 9999 are generally used for ferry or repositioning flights.

Could we resolve this by swapping one number for a letter? 26 options instead of 10 raises the pool substantially. Letters A-J indicate inbound, K-Z outbound? Or westbound/eastbound.

Anymore, more a me problem than a name problem. Just wanted to share.

Put aside the obliteration of stock value and job loss. What would be lost, and how hard would it be for folks to replace it with something else?

I imagine it would be all the talk for a hot few days. There'd be a hustle and a bustle as folks tried to entice their friends to other services. There'd be a land grab to recreate network effect lock in. There'd be talk even among normies to avoid it.

It'd be glorious, I tell you.

And three weeks later, there'd be a winner that got most of the exodus. A few people standing around looking for a chair in a 21st century version of duck-duck-goose.

A year later, things would be largely the same. Just as abusive. Serfs to different lords. No one would miss Meta.

There's often not a direct causation, but the correlation is compelling to me. We used to have to talk to people, and/or struggle and learn to meet our objectives. When we can skip those steps and immediately arrive at our destinations, we can sometimes miss the journey.

stands before manaskarekar

clasps manaskarekar upon both shoulders

gazes into manaskarekar

softly smiles and subtly nods at manaskarekar

releases clasp and worm-dances back into the desert

I note that Github's only opt out for a public star list is to 'Make profile private and hide activity', with the description:

"Enabling this will hide your contributions and activity from your GitHub profile and from social features like followers, stars, feeds, leaderboards and releases"

That's a vague set of repercussions. Cleverly worded to discourage.

Feature request: A way of export your star list into a handy json format before you nuke it. I'd like to have this for my own historical record, without having to share it with the public or Microsoft.

> If a chatbot appears to be manipulative, mean, weird, or deceptive, what kind of answer do we want when we ask why? Revealing the indispensable antecedent examples from which the bot learned its behavior would provide an explanation: we’d learn that it drew on a particular work of fan fiction, say, or a soap opera. We could react to that output differently, and adjust the inputs of the model to improve it. Why shouldn’t that type of explanation always be available? There may be cases in which provenance shouldn’t be revealed, so as to give priority to privacy—but provenance will usually be more beneficial to individuals and society than an exclusive commitment to privacy would be.

Remember 'View Source'? And how bundling engines eventually made it irrelevant? What if every piece of content had a genuinely accurate and useful View Source?

As an aside, I've been vibe-cooking for a few months on a personal project that's accomplished something lovely. For me. I sometimes wonder if I should give it away much like this project. But public reactions like yours temper the thought.

I've determined it must be fictional (maybe wrong?) given the just-entertaining-enough player names, which set me up into a smile during the lineup introduction.