Yeah exactly. It's a big circle of references without any hard proof. The worrying thing is the Google AI product came off as quite gullible, and it's jumping the queue in front of any sort of writing with critical thinking
After being very concerned that the Google agent seriously believes hitting one's jaw with a hammer was a real phenomenon, citing that the real cases must be private, a medical journal mentioned it and they would never pick up tiktok rumours (they essentially did) etc I thought it would have surely been fooled here. I suppose if not, important facts like this could be agent-checked and need a 2/2 consensus in that case
While the bubble is real, my family and friends mention AI much more than they did a few years ago. They notice the content on YouTube, the news cycle, real and speculative job impacts, funny images, ability to plan things with chatgpt, etc.
Startups and this kind of business trap are not unique to the first world. As well, your comment is sort of generic isn't it? I could imagine it on virtually every post here
It's already solved some problems I was blocked on for side-projects. I don't feel I have spent energy, and will go back to Opus after July 7th, minus a few hard problems being solved.
Even so, what's wrong with this? They told you up front that they're going to discriminate. Students can use the code freely, businesses may struggle. People don't need to be fair.
I have trialled live coding with it and while amazing it suddenly generates half outputs and gets stuck. Right no, no, its swamping their volunteers, not suddenly making their service better.
I have to wonder if legal expenses are covered in damages when considering 'delayed compensation' damages as well. This doesn't feel like it was worth it at all otherwise, given the risk they took on (originally losing, too)
Okay so let's say at face value: collectible is invalid, but the gambling take is valid. How does that explain 401k plans any better? Surely some aspect of both the gambling value and the perceived future appeal (what I call aesthetic) plays into this? Or what do you categorize crypto as, if not those two things? (I mean this curiously, as I appreciate these don't cover the illicit nature)
Again, mostly not wrong but a bit annoying. I enjoy money that works with a programmable remote procedure call system (what I refer to as aesthetic, as sure, I can't call this super useful in real economic terms) and I'm quite willing to take a loss. Not sure what you're adding to what hasn't already been said; you effectively ignored my post.
"Cryptocurrency is gambling, plain and simple." I actually view it as a collectible, and find it a bit annoying when people assert that it is simply not valid to view it as anything but gambling (which it certainly can be). It has a certain aesthetic to me and I enjoy having it (if it needs to be said, I do not encourage anyone to buy it, and if you already do want it, I encourage a small position). Yes it is not rational. There is an aspect of 'this is inherently worthless', but that's been true of collectable cardboard for a long time. So has in-signalling and speculation.
If collectable cards were algorithmically printed into oblivion they would lose all value too.
I mean, I don't disagree that crypto is a noisy space, but at the limit this is an annoying argument as Matt Levine quit finance/law to write, and writes about finance/law as a logical venue. Indeed, he originally felt his time could be spent better than selling products to people to lower their taxes
Like people advocating sqlite in busy prod settings, this is squarely "a few rare people swear by this" territory. I do think it's underused, but a fair bit of a footgun (similar to running sqlite at its very limits imo)
I think that's the biggest thing to me. It's easy to say 'we can do just fine without $BAG_OF_TOOLS, there's no real need for it, it's simpler and faster and we get off the ground with it', but then once you have enough people that a bag of tools is needed, you create an in-house bag and soon you have a 'simple' system for managing state that is nevertheless much less exciting to the new cohort of $BAG_OF_TOOLS bootcamp graduates, etc. And people pointing to the framework graveyard ignore that you need to hire people now, not 10 years from now. If 10 years from now React is as obscure as an in-house framework, meh?
> It's very likely that Jump will settle this case. Even if they somehow win at trial, the domain owner can simply appeal and keep hold of the domain name for years before the appeal is resolved.
I hope he crowdfunds his legal fees if it comes to that. It would be an apt way to fire back at people claiming to defend public goods, and the negative PR would worry Jump almost more
When the results degrade, I'll stop using this approach. This feels like an "argument from cynicism" given that there's a widespread feel this gives better results (and intuitively, this feels like microbartering and more as likely to get a reddit post about the phenomenon as acceptance, no not everyone will accept random $100 solicitations, and they're not influential enough for more)
As well, authenticity can be investigated more than in reviews. If the person has a bunch of genuine seeming posts in other categories the risk of not being authentic is acceptably low for me (might seem like a bit much, but be burned by obscured ads enough times...)