noitpmeder

I'm not saying there can't be very clear counter examples, I guess the overall sense though is that "being a team player' is generally considered an attractive quality in any employee. If A is a team player and B isn't, and they're otherwise equivalent, you're probably going to take/keep A.

It's not like (most) hiring managers put "not a team player" in the pro column.

Not sure any of the band members are over 1b individually which is the current threshold. Maybe, though.

If a qualification for the role is "appreciation for certain less represented cultures/ideas/..." then sure. Otherwise, for a backend c++ engineer the benefits are significantly less obvious, to the point it's really hard to make a case for why DEI concerns should trump traditional evaluation metrics for skill.

The goal should be to hire the best team for the use case, regardless of gender/race/culture/background.

If you're not a team player I'd expect you to be on the chopping block regardless of underlying race, mental, culture, ...

I think it's probably enough to get your phone to open your texting app with a pre populated number and message body, then all the user needs to do is hit send.

Are neither of those things possible with a sqlite backend??? Why would one ever reach for this bespoke database tech

And what's your opinion on the em dash?

It's probably more "enough people are affected by consumerist advertising that it's effective"

How the fuck did Texas get this one right but the rest of the USA is in flames.

That being said, things like Nyse Texas paint an opposite picture of the state.

You say "a lot of people" but there aren't many of those. The scalpers/pokemon resellers/... making bank and posting on Instagram are, if not outright fraud, at best the 1% to 0.1% of those trying to do it

Please do the math on what $50/week could mean to you in 10 or 20 years and compare that to the likelihood you have any kind of edge betting.

Realistically though, with the demographics as they are, aren't these young men just throwing dice to gamble against and take the money of other young men? Isn't this a 0 sum game?

Or is it more young men vs the establishment where the establishment wins the vast majority of the time but occasionally a young dude makes the right longshot bet?

Because the vast majority of 40/50 year olds don't fit into either category you described?

If anything every day we prove the current setup is NOT sustainable

How about we just get rid of all the fucking loopholes

Why would anthropic at all prefer this approach when that middle man can switch and cost-arbitrage between countless other model providers.

We're not talking about what is best for the consumer (ex more competition to force iterations and improvements), but what Anthropic thinks is best for Anthropic.

My kneejerk is that most consumers these days expect delivery for items purchased online, and allowing them to pick up their items at a brick and mortar probably isn't the issue.

Now, dropping off items you're selling? That probably removes a decent hurdle for many first-time/one-time users who aren't familiar with shipping (what box/label/insurance/padding/...).

And tl::expected (a largely identical impl) has been available similarly as long!

exactly, use std::expected as the return type, avoid exceptions, and make a failable factory constructor to build your type. Make invalid states unrepresentable!!!

What restitution is the average american on the hook for these days?

The fact that they hijack scrolling to artificially limit scroll speed is insane to me. Feels like I'm trying to navigate through molasses

As I understand it they operate as two separate entities -- polymarket US and polymarket INTL.

I actually don't hate this??? As long as parents can set up their own whitelists and it's not up to the government to have the final say on any particular block.

This reminds me a bit of a recent publication by Stroustrup about using concepts... in C++ to validate integer conversions automatically where necessary.

https://www.stroustrup.com/Concept-based-GP.pdf

  {
     Number<unsigned int> ii = 0;
     Number<char> cc = '0';
     ii = 2; // OK
     ii = -2; // throws
     cc = i; // OK if i is within cc’s range
     cc = -17; // OK if char is signed; otherwise throws
     cc = 1234; // throws if a char is 8 bits
  }

I think it's less simping for good and more (rightfully) dunking on Tesla

I hate that it's true, but things like this make outputs night-and-day for me. This is the difference e.g. of a model writing appropriate test harnesses, or pushing back on requirements, vs writing the most absolute horrible code and test/dependency injection I've ever seen in pursuit of the listed goals.

Similar to adjacent commentors I've tried to be better at enumerating what I consider to be best practice, but I couldn't argue in good faith that instructions like these produce no noticible improvment.

(As with all things AI, it could all be percepion on my end, so YMMV, wish there was a better way to concretely evaluate effects on outcomes of different rule sets / instructions / ...)

The point of signing contracts is you explicitly set expectations for service, and explicitly assign liability. You can't just reverse that and try to pass the blame.

Sure, if someone from GCP shows up at your business and breaks your leg or burns down your building, you can go after them, as it's outside the reasonable expectation of the business agreement you signed.

But you better believe they will never be legally responsible for damages caused by outages of their service beyond what is reasonable, and you better believe "reasonable outage" in this case is explicitly enumerated in the contact you or your company explicitly agreed to.

Sure they might give you free credits for the outage, but that's just to stop you from switching to a competitor, not any explicit acknowledgement they are on the hook for your lost business opportunity.

So I can pass on contact breaches due to bugs in software I maintain due to hallucinations by the AI that I used to write the software?? Absolutely no way.

"But the AI wrote the bug."

Who cares? It could be you, your relative, your boss, your underling, your counterpart in India, ... Your company provided some reasonable guarantee of service (whether explitly enumerated in a contact or not) and you cannot just blindly pass the buck.

Sure, after you've settled your claim with the user, maybe TRY to go after the upstream provider, but good luck.

(Extreme example) -- If your company produces a pacemaker dependent on AWS/GCP/... and everyone dies as soon as cloudflare has a routing outage that cascades to your provider, oh boy YOU are fucked, not cloudflare or your hosting provider.

This is some absolute BS. In the current day and age you are 1000% responsible for the externalities of your use of AI.

Read the terms and conditions of your model provider. The document you signed, regardless if you read or considered it, explicitly removes any negative consequences being passed to the AI provider.

Unless you have something equally as explicit, e.g. "we do not guarantee any particular outcome from the use of our service" (probably needs to be significantly more explicitly than that, IANAL) all responsibility ends up with the entity who itself, or it's agents, foists unreliable AI decisions on downstream users.

Remember, you SIGNED THE AGGREMENT with the AI company the explicitly says it's outputs are unreliable!!

And if you DO have some watertight T&C that absolves you of any responsibility of your AI-backed-service, then I hope either a) your users explicitly realize what they are signing up for, or b) once a user is significantly burned by your service, and you try to hide behind this excuse, you lose all your business

Appointments are a whole other issue (see the extreme turnover in the American executive branch every 4 years). Id rather the head of my local police dept be significantly supported by the populating instead of an appointment from a governor, mayor, ... whose entire schtick can change on a dime.

Independent elections are a good thing. Bundling offices together under a single election that appoints the rest of the world is terrible and only leans further into the two party see-saw that exists in the USA.

I really wish for proportional representation. Not that it really applies to your local police force, but we need to break apart the complete A-or-B nature of American politics. Form coalitions, not monoliths that trade off earning 51% of the electorate every cycle that the completely repoints the entirety of the govt for the next 4 years.