nkmnz

It’s the opposite of racist, which would be clear if your previous comment hadn’t been flagged. Compare tel Aviv “pride” with US “proud boys”.

First they came for the Communists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Communist

.

Then they came for the Socialists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist

.

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a trade unionist

.

Then they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew

.

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out

- Martin Niemöller

At least you can be proud in Tel Aviv using a rainbow instead of the color of your skin.

Just replace “left” with “the good guys according to kmeisthax (TM)” and “right” with “the bad guys according to kmeisthax (TM)” and I’d stop objecting at all. It’s not helpful (and not very honest, but rather eristic) to try to manipulate your understanding of good and bad onto “left” and “right”. It derails every discourse about what really matters: the question what is “good” and what is “bad”.

I know an e-commerce company where the staging environment was completely hijacked by product managers to "stage" their data. They've even convinced management to ask IT to build a tool for migrating data from staging to production. All of this just to avoid building a proper release flow for (product-)data.

Especially the pricing is equally joyous.

> 1. Right-wing politics supports and defends already-established power structures.

Once the left is in power, they immediately turn out to be right wing? Does it happen in the very second they gain power or only when try to keep it? Is running for the next election even though you're already in power inherently right-wing?

The author did not take a stance on the question if Hamas and Iran are leftist Muslims or far-right Islamists, so I dared to ask. You might not believe this, but many German leftist - even moderate ones - supported explicitly the Islamic Revolution, as well as the first or second Intifada. The author might include Hamas and IIR into his conclusion of some groups being "inherently scary to anyone outside the preferred in-group", but by observation, that doesn't seem to be true once your own out-group (i.e., Capitalists, Jews, and Jewish Capitalists) seems even more inherently scary to you than some Islamist thousands of miles away. It's also not true for the governments of Russia or China, which are neither Muslim nor Islamist, thus not part of the proclaimed Iranian "in-group", but they are not at all scared of them.

Furthermore, the author's claims demote "left" and "right" to some kind of synonyms of what they have labeld as "good" and "bad" on their personal moral compass, robbing them of any systematic meaning in political reality; those definitions match neither scientific consensus, nor the way people self-select into groups that call themselves either "left" or "right", nor the way these terms are used to describe policies. The reason is simple: the goals that he attributes to his idea of what "left" means cannot be achieved and sustained on the scale of modern governments and states without the means of authoritarianism, which is, by his definition, exclusively a "far-right" thing.

Thank you, I couldn't have said that in a better way.

"Anti-Fascism" is not an objective terminology to describe a stance against fascism. There are a million ways in which you can oppose fascism, most of which follow democratic traditions of the social, classical liberal, or conservative flavor.

Antifascism is a self-designation of popcultural dimensions, similar to a Che Guevara shirt. It can be appropriated by anybody who's willing to sign off on the same vague image of an enemy. I have no idea if there are, indeed, terroristic cells in the US that appropriated the brand of Antifascism, but there are some in Germany[0][1].

But more interestingly, the brand hasn't always been free of ownership: it was first created by the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in 1932 as a part of their internal and external stalinisation and their adoption of authoritarian structures and policies, which started from 1928 under the influence of the USSR. During that time, KPD proclaimed the main fascist adversary to be no other than the Social Democrats (SPD):

"Stalinisation of the KPD began under the leadership of Ernst Thälmann. Freedom of discussion and internal democracy were replaced piece by piece by (...) authoritarian leadership. (...) in 1929 Thälmann and Stalin agreed upon an ultra-left course against the SPD, concluding that the Social Democrats represented a form of 'social fascism'. (...) The theory of social fascism dictated that Nazis and Social Democrats were essentially two sides of the same coin. The primary enemy of the Communists was supposedly the Social Democrats" [2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_left-wing_extremism_tr...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Complex

[2] https://isj.org.uk/divided-they-fell-the-german-left-and-the...

It seems like there is tradeoff between model size and the need for tool use, which - in my mind - is quite costly in terms of time and tokens. More detailed world knowledge requires an exponential increase in model size, but most knowledge can be acquired ad hoc using search or database queries. This will fail for questions where the model lacks the knowledge to ask the right questions, but maybe this could be solved by a handful small inquiry models with different knowledge encoded in their weights?

I'd like to ask Sam Altman if he still thinks that it's too dangerous to publish GPT-3. I mean, no one would use it, but what is his reasoning for not publishing it now, in 2026?

But that's been true for your locally held claims as well, and even more so in modern times with tax rates hovering around 50% in many European countries. It's just that they take their cut every single month, instead of doing so at will.

What kind of program was that? Permanent employment contract (no "Befristung") without any co-financing through private investors, private grants, or the company's revenue?

This might be possible with public grants, but I've never seen it. They usually come with additional strings attached, such as being a de minimis subsidy (limited to 300k in a rolling 3 year window), requiring private co-funding (e.g. 50% for the whole project), being limited to a couple of months or maybe 2-3 years max, etc., so for competitive pay, you must almost always rely on some kind of "mixed financing": every penny above the salary that TVöD allows must be acquired from sources other than the gran. ymmv, part of the lack of attractiveness of public funding is the fact that each program differs in a million different ways.

We're both wrong, it's 38.646,02€

Go to https://www.nettolohn.de and enter 64000€, choose Berlin, keep the rest. That's not enough for a modest lifestyle for a family, proven by the fact that with such an income, you're already entitled for social benefits (Wohngeld) in an average German city of 200.000 inhabitants for a family of 4: https://www.wohngeld.org/einkommen/#Wohngeldtabellen_fuer_Mi...

This is the government telling you: you can come work full time for us, but you'll not be able to provide for your family, that's why you can stand in line with all those who don't work at all to claim your benefits.

> Compensation is based on the collective agreement for the public sector in Germany (TVöD-Bund) and will range from €64,000 to €82,000 per year for a full-time position, including 30 days of vacation, depending on qualifications and experience.

LOL. That's €32,122 net for a full time position. And you're not even allowed to work from a place in southern Europe where you can actually live from that amount of money.

> They don’t employ software-developers. No safety for the developers. No control over developers.

Thank god they don't employ them. It would be terrible for everyone involved, especially for the developers. The government in Germany is a terrible employer for someone with high work ethics and a dedication to their craft. They crush your soul with bureaucracy and drain your spirit with rules and regulation. On top of that, they pay is ridiculously bad. I'm a principle engineer at a private company and some government agency thought they could poach me with 4k a month, LOL, that's not enough to pay rent and put food on the table for a family of 3 in my city (remember, we pay ~50% in tax and social contributions).

In 1817, capital did not cross borders. Borders crossed capital.

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2. Risk is convex, so every risk increase by measures not taken is multiplicative, not additive.

The real question must be: does the disinfection do more harm than it provides reduction of risk.

Basic napkin math: 5% IRR means they'd only need to 4.5x their revenue to make this roughly work. If they can finance this cheaper and/or do not have better options for their cash, it's even less.

A sales person is usually trained on an existing product or portfolio of products (including services). A good sales person might use their exposure to customers for gathering valuable information to feed back into their upstream org. But this is completely different from someone who has to actively shape a both sides of the company, value delivery and value creation, because both need to mature in a choreographed manner.

So you are right in one direction: a good CEO often has to be a good sales person. The reverse does not apply, though.

GLM-5.3 is one of the faster models, at least according to artificialanalysis - openAI and Anthropic are the slowest.

The fact that it’s a canary makes it a prime tool for A/B testing of generalized approaches to censor or “secure” a model.

So it's better to wait around for motivation to build a habit and develop discipline.

Same. I still do not agree with some of his stances on high dose creatine, genetic engineering, neurosciences, and Israel, which led him to block me on Twitter. Sometimes, he acts like a sad guy. But his writing is genius. No wonder, he’s able to sell the same book under 5 different titles!

I think Taleb's argument is more along two lines:

1. Hormesis ("low-dose exposures have a beneficial effect and high-dose amounts are either inhibitory to function or toxic"[0])

2. Evolutionary adaptation: alcohol has been around humans since literally forever, it has even been a part of our evolutionary ancestors' diet for millions of years. For us, it occurs in (over)ripe fruit, bread, and in some of us via natural fermentation in the stomach. Directed creation of alcoholic beverages has been done for more than 10.000 years, on top of that. This puts alcohol in a completely different risk class of substances compared with other legal or illegal drugs, because risk is a function of (mal)adaptation. I'd be inclined to limit this argument to fermented products and exclude distilled spirits.

3. "Drunk hypothesis": the true beneficial effect on humans could be failed to be measured by life expectancy of a single human, and instead should be measured by the "life expectancy" of societies and their cultural dominance as [1] hypothesizes.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis

[1] https://www.mpg.de/25055517/alcohol-and-the-rise-of-complex-...

It’s a common denominator if you want to do napkin-math for a whole national economy. Regulatory capture is like a tax on those people not on the beneficiary side, so if the government were to nationalize both supply (no export license for SOTA models) and demand (no foreign or self-hosted LLMs allowed), they’d end up making everyone else pay for it in some way or the other. The governmental utility function will then include only those using the services for direct economic benefit.

I think at this point the question is: will the US government be willing and capable to justify the trillion dollar valuation for _one_ of the companies via regulatory capture? The US has a workforce of 170m, so 1.7 trillion would come down to 10k per person, or a discounted cashflow at 3% of 25 USD per month - not including private use, students etc.

Nothing more horrible than apps that "care about the host OS in terms of UI", thus looking different on every type of device I have to use for work.

That would be “ranks second to x OR y”