idontpost

With async communication you really need to define what quicker means. I suspect you're not defining it the same as people who prefer a quick call.

So you just don't believe that first order logic exists then?

> ChatGPT seems to understand how to reason about a large multiplication the same that a 6 or 7 year old might

This is purely ignorant magical thinking.

You're ignoring the very real facts of how ChatGPT works and fabricating a fantasy that you prefer to believe.

It's ripe for anti-trust action.

This is magical thinking, no different than a cult.

The fundamental design of transformer architecture isn't capable of what you think it is.

There are still radical, fundamental breakthroughs needed. It's not a matter of incremental improvement over time.

Rockefeller avoided the press entirely (to his detriment really) until well after he'd retired.

Sounds like that clause applies pre-extradition, not post.

He can be entirely explained by random luck.

If you're got enough moron CEOs spouting enough random crap, one of them will get lucky often enough.

His only real skill is taking credit for things other people do.

Damn you Markov!

That has nothing to do with hardware quality.

Can you answer without moving the goal posts?

> The worst part about features like this are that a few smart people will actually use them (whether because they're powerful features, or just because they feel powerful when using them), and then render their code incomprehensible to the mere mortals who have to support their code in the future.

I really don't understand what motivates this kind of petty hostility.

It could have been written about any of a thousand language features that didn't exist in assembly and now exist in higher level languages, and it would be just as sad.

Using zip code could at least have a really interesting incentive towards de-segregating residential neighborhoods.

Highly motivated parents would have a reason to move into neighborhoods that they previously would not have lived in.

There's also a fraud incentive since it's not super difficult to pretend to live in a different zip code. Plenty of politicians do it.

Isn't the obvious solution to sample in polar coordinates instead? 0-1 for the radial coordinate, and (0 - 1) * 2pi for the angle.

> The last interview was with someone very technical, who had printed out a few pages of listings of the obfuscated C contest. He asked me to go through them and tell him what each program would output. I did not get the job.

It's nice to know that stupid interview questions are not a modern innovation.

It's not crazy at all. Our entire society is built around exploitatively extracting maximum value from each other and that often requires creative marketing to invent want where none existed before.

Each coin-toss is a deterministic physical process governed by laws of motion. If we had perfect information about the motion of all components in the system (hand, coin, air, floor, etc.), then we could, in principle, perfectly predict the outcome of every toss. Each individual toss would have a 100% probability of its predicted outcome.

Since we typically lack any of that information, we are stuck with the 50 / 50 prior distribution.

Yeah, the bloodthirsty fascists are fine, everyone else is rude for calling them out.

> Get your head out the fantasy world of utopia and see the real world

Oh, the irony is delicious, you delusional fascist.

> Like JavaScript, yet another language written for bad to average developers to keep them from shooting themselves in the foot.

I can't imagine anyone ever describing vanilla JavaScript this way.

Conservation of momentum says otherwise -- the faster the ball is going, the more change in momentum it needs, the harder it needs to be hit.

It sounds like you do understand.

It's vacuous mouth noises to please journalists and twitterati, utterly devoid of meaning or content.

And you would be wrong.

I can think of a few hundred people on Kaua'i that would be helped if Zuck fucked right off.

> It is in their terms of service that what they are doing is legal

I don't know what you're trying to say, but that sentence is complete nonsense.

You can't make an illegal action legal by putting it in a contract.

I don't want your attitude at my business.

Everyone makes mistakes. And code review is also about knowledge sharing and avoiding single points of failure in staffing.

> I don’t want to have to check the price of every item on the manufacturers site to see if I can get it cheaper there.

No one is forcing you to comparison shop. You're trying to take freedom from others so you can financially justify being lazy.

> I understand the anticompetitive concerns, but there is also a big advantage for consumers to be able to have a single market that has the lowest prices available and easy ordering.

Not when that "lowest price available" is now inflated from what it would have been. Consumers lose because now they pay higher prices than they otherwise would have.

That's still not "ending up in the same boat".

> You are right that it is different, but it's not unambiguously better.

That's a separate issue from the common misconception in this thread that cash is the same as RSUs.

RSUs have more risk than cash, and more potential upside. They are unambiguously different.

No, you can't.

The number of people in this thread who don't understand RSU grants at all is kind of shocking.

You're granted $800k of RSUs up front at the current stock price, 25% percent vests every year. That is VERY different than buying 200k of stock every year because the 800k is all granted at the INITIAL price, whereas buying 200k every year buys stock at the CURRENT price.

If you could take 200k cash every year and then time travel back to the start of the period with it and buy the stock, THAT would be equivalent to RSUs.

> Couldn’t you use the 200k cash alternative to buy AAPL, theoretically, and end up in the same boat?

No you couldn't.

You'd have to put in several years of 200k of cash up front to end up in the same boat.