jakderrida

Looks like my most embellished resume ever somehow came to life.

But, yeah, to emphasize your point, patent trolls, in my experience, consist solely of attorneys and not industry researchers with extensive academic credentials. Smart on them to start the article with that.

> all of whom took principled stands against such apparatus.

Yeah, and look what happened to them.

> If I want Chinese quality merchandise there's a Chinese store very nearby where I can go and look at the plastic at least.

You mean like the equivalent of sorting by lowest on eBay??

Like a Chinese guy I can walk up to and say, "I need a 120 foot HDMI and I will not be paying a cent over $22.43 for it because that's what's all the lowest cost sellers on eBay charge."

> yet people do not want to even think about doing it.

probably because placing a price on some things seems too transactional. Not saying you're wrong, though. Just saying that's why. The alternative is allowing more rapacious disregard for the aggregate negative effects on everyone as a whole.

So... Any reason I'm not aware of that "tech seniors" would have a higher disposition to using the day care? Btw, I'm not being sarcastic. I know nothing of Google's benefits operations or demographic composition, let alone varying dispositions to use said benefits.

It's a day care, though. How "senior" could they be?

Not to sound like I know better, but wouldn't that imply it to be hugely successful? When the demand exceeds supply, my first assumption is that an increase in supply, if possible, would reap high marginal benefits. Again, I know nothing of Google's inner workings.

>When has an arms race ever gone well against people making money off that arms race?

Technically, there are two sides to that equation making money. I get what you're saying, though.

> particularly American or British. "can't" is particularly hard to say properly in my English and US people misunderstand the way we say it.

What'd you call me?

Yeah, seriously... How excited they expect us to get? Freaking AI made its debut and has accelerated nonstop since and y'all want us talking about new WiFi versions? I didn't know there was versions!

Was the original Tesla Roadster made by them using an AC induction motor?

I literally don't know. However, that's where I'd draw the line between who deserves credit. If it was Musk's idea, he deserves it. If it was them, then they do. Because that seems to me to be the major innovation. Also, if stationary storage devices started with them, then I'd argue their long-term plan was probably better than Musk's. However, I don't know who started that either. It just seemed like the long-term plan was to use eco-conscious rich people to finance storage innovations that would make the overall grid much more efficient through stationary solutions.

It's a sad world where our standards are that low. But they are that low for good reasons.

> but maybe there is demand for a vehicle for speculation that isn't tied to anything real, at all.

I'll go with completely agreeing with this statement, the way it's written. Let's be honest...There's nothing semantically or generally wrong with it to argue against.

As far as the "gambling" part... My objection would be that speculative vehicles aren't really on the "stock market" as much as they are the "derivatives market", if anything. Problem here is that the derivatives are, by definition, tied to the value of something else that could be called an investment. I'm not opposed to people trading. I made my money with market making algorithms and will make more as people keep trading. I'm just saying that classifying it as an "investment" poses quite a few issues for the SEC in terms of regulating it. Introducing it into an ETF that does nothing but hold crypto will be viewed by the public (that doesn't understand what crypto is) into presenting it as an investment. There are issues with that.

I know making millions off crypto doesn't make me an authority, but... It's not an investment. I made money off people speculating by taking advantage solely off an inefficient market. There's nothing else to it. Money put in is not used to generate more wealth. Whether it's going to be used as an official currency in the future in no way would make an investment, nor would it mean it should even go up an value.

lmao! It's so stupid that it's funny again.

Not sure if it answers your question, but the expertise of each expert arise from the training process and aren't assigned by a human. Thus, they wouldn't be discernable to a human. The choice of the model to use, I think, is something called like a "gating network". That's also trained to favor most appropriate model based on training.

Annoyingly, Bard with Gemini will apparently use coding to answer every logical thinking question and get them all wrong. If you end with "Do not use code", it will get them all right.

Aw man... I was looking forward to a whole night of attempted savage takedowns. Not mature constructive criticisms.

I don't even have a phD. I just find openreview's feedback fun to read. For the same reason I love watching Gordon Ramsey give feedback.

This is an excellent point people neglect. Another one, when I was a FiOs tech for Verizon, is that every strike, workers would discuss the company making money on saved wages. Every time, I'd explain how they're losing money each day we strike and how replacing the whole workforce wouldn't make the stock skyrocket. I even showed workers statements by major banks estimating how much they lose each day. Even wall street has wised up since the 80s.

> If I had to invest in any one area of LLM usage, it would be this. There is so much unstructured data in the world, and converting things like legal contracts or chatlogs into structured, queryable data is absurdly powerful.

I tested poorly OCR'd text from a late 1800s magazine and was pretty impressed with the results from both GPT-4 and even Bard. In addition to making inferences based on the letters, it was able to infer from context the historically accurate terms. However, one prompt asking it to correct words didn't work as well as two prompts with the first one listing candidates for bad OCR'd words.

While that might not seem like what you're talking about, it has the benefit of adding to the overall corpus that the future models are trained on. Also, with the NYT lawsuit, I'd presume fixing OCRs of old magazines and articles would be a pretty good way to fill the gap left behind.

> philosophy that blesses their accretion of wealth and power as the ultimate good for society.

While "accretion" works. I think you were looking for "accumulation". Only because "accretion" implies it's gradual or "over time". Or possibly not. idk.

It looks like my writing while a pretentious 14 year old that didn't realize how transparent it was I was trying to prove I was smarter than everyone.

And if Russia were the invader, we both know that more than half of them would join them as collaborators. Truth is that flag-worship has always been a piss poor indicator of actual patriotism.

That's what they're concerned about?!? I've never done so much drugs that I purchased Twitter in a massively leveraged deal just to red-pill gullible incels to build a cult of personality around me.

God damn! R is below F# and....D? What the hell is D?

I've never seen a video illustrate to me why the pilum was genius better than that. The guy even shows that, even if you did have a free hand, you're still pretty f'd. Also, to see the long tip bend to make it even harder never occurred to me. I've seen videos long ago on history channel illustrate fake ones they made that were much shorter and was baffled why I would drop my shield.

Thank you for posting that.

Well, right now, I'm more than happy to pay it because the existence and defense of Ukraine is worth way more to me than that money. I was just referring to the attitude that would arise from the public that was fatigued by conflicts prior to Ukraine. It's not that I oppose the existence of the military, especially not under the current circumstances. But I'm saying it was more than understandable how many would have viewed it only a few years ago. "Defending freedom" was just an empty tagline back then that lacked even a tenuous case.

To be clear, I expected NOT to find anything that would help accomplish that task. Because the vast opportunities would imply it didn't exist. So, yeah, what I expected to find is crap and what I found was hilarious crap. The dude did have a way with words, though. It's just hilarious how pretentious the books were considering they didn't really impart any useful knowledge.

> they don't want to risk their lives defending it

Well, defending it is something else entirely. Being sent to a remote outpost in Afghanistan without even a broad objective for any US soldiers being there to complete is only arguably "defending" and quite a poor argument at that. The country, itself, is well defended without me.