nswango

So 1/40 of Reuters annual revenues, 1/1000 of Facebook annual revenues, is being wasted on ... lobbying governments against internet censorship and cross-subsidising translations into less popular languages?

How dare the most useful human knowledge resource spend the money freely given to it in such a way!

The 'Wikipedia is spending your donations on DEI' conspiracy has run its course I think.

A strange take. Everything indicates that while the best human chess and Go players will continue to be incrementally better than all previous humans, computer players will improve much faster and leave all humans behind in very short order.

As with chess, roughly equal matches between computers and human players are probably happening for the very last few times.

Idiomatically a handicap is a disadvantage not an advantage. So if Shin had two extra stones, KataGo had a two stone handicap.

Your father did not buy those so that isn't a counterexample to what the GP said. Clearly, something your father made with his own hands will have a different value to something he bought.

I have encountered many. For example if you find a password in plaintext in source control, you don't assume the person who put it there had a good reason, you assume they were deeply misguided.

Maybe your responsibility is to push back against the pressure put on you to deliver short-term.

My version was Chesterton's Facehugger.

Something which, as soon as you discover it, you should immediately respond by trying to remove it, without asking questions about where it came from or what its purpose might be.

I think a more likely scenario is that GPU time in the cloud will be very cheap. If LLM use/profitability doesn't follow the expected path, new deep learning applications could be heavily subsidised.

This sounds like you are urging people not to disregard racism when comparing superpower regimes.

Whataboutism is a very useful game to reveal whether people are being honest or not.

If someone is vocally complaining about country A doing some oppressive activity, while ignoring country B doing 100x the same activity, the comparison does not forgive or excuse country A, or make them right or admirable.

But it does allow us to conclude that the person complaining is biased. Either they don't care about the oppressive activity and want to attack country A for some other reason. Or they have a particular fondness for country B and will never accept that it does wrong. Or some variation on these.

Disagree. When tool limitations meant that this was the way people had to work, many people could do this.

It was much more inefficient, because it's easier to find bugs after compiling or running the code. But it is perfectly possible.

You don't think neural networks are going to be a factor in drone wars? How far out do you think this prediction will hold?

You know that when there were COVID related supply chain disruptions to microchips coming out of Taiwan, Europe and the US actually found it impossible to make the right number of cars?

Offshoring into China was literally invented by Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese companies.

We see high quality tech products coming out of the countries and assume that they're very good at building things. In fact they are extremely good at managing complex supply chains going in and out of PRC, while keeping certain high value add parts of the business within their own countries.

It's not a lot of reviewing if you simply find the first thing that makes the document unusable and call them out on it.

If it's genuinely hard to find that single bug .. perhaps the document has reached the quality required for corporate communication?

Just keep on spinning cotton thread the old way, ignore what they're building in Manchester..

Don't know if you are serious, but why become part of the problem?

Why not just review a single document quickly, find an error which invalidates the document, and send it back saying "Policy paper 1 mentions X as being on the business plan for Y, it's not on the plan, please can you fix."

I think that's exactly the grandparent's point.

Those conflicts are all the pretexts - they believe that it's actually class war and the other labels are all used to avoid calling it by its name.

This is not true. Plenty of Europeans have credit cards which work exactly like US credit cards.

The main difference between credit cards in Europe and in the US is that poor people can't get them here.

No offense to the OP but this game is much more fun.

Does history record whether Hitler was using the good ol' giggles-and-joy pseudoephedrine meth or the evil psychosis-inducing P2P biker meth?

Have you ever been an addict?

I have, and the argument that everyone addicted had some other issue going on is pretty pointless imho. Yes, they had some other issue, and now before fixing that issue they also have to deal with being a drug addict.

This is complete rubbish. The peak years of the war on drugs had a variety of hard drugs available on street corners across all major cities.

At best it kept some amount of some drugs less visible in some suburbs and communities, while making it profitable for suppliers to cross those lines.

The main effect of the war on drugs was a level of incarceration outdoing almost any society in human history. The fact that the numbers jailed for victimless and quality of life 'crimes' kept going up is testament to the fact that there was hardly any effective deterrence.

The original Atlantic article, which this one is trying to refute, also doesn't present any evidence for the theory that 'new meth' has significant different effects on health.

After a fact dump about different types of meth, it's literally a collection of anecdotal evidence from meth users going "for the first 5 years of smoking weekly, I had a great time partying in a relaxed way with my best buds, now that I've lost my job, partner, family and home and smoke daily my mental health is fucked up".

And people working in drug care and enforcement saying "when a few rich hedonists would spend $60 for the next level high, it didn't cause schizophrenia. Now that we have thousands of former crack and opiate addicts living in tents injecting $10 bags three times a day it seems to be contaminated with something that causes detachment from reality."

The literal two most common and evergreen things in drug culture are users claiming that the old stuff was much better and would deliver a clean high without addiction for barely any money, and cops claiming that the old users were better, gentlemen fiends who did not sell their bodies or rob and exploit their own families, never bit or stabbed you when being arrested, and did not soil themselves or set fire to their own clothes while in custody.

Any exact number of countries is offensive to several groups of people.

I mean tons of back pain is medically unexplained. It's not like physiology has a perfect record here that can be used to dismiss alternative theories.

In California weed is legal but highly regulated. It's easy to buy weed in the legal market but very difficult to be licensed to sell or grow it.

The result is that the illegal market dwarfs the legal market. The legal suppliers simply can't compete with efficient and untaxed illegal or grey market sellers.

Note that the consumers who choose the illegal market are not in general socially excluded, habitual criminals or broken down addicts. Weed is widespread in almost all parts of society and probably less prevalent along dirt poor, mentally unwell or homeless drug users, who favour fent or meth.

People with jobs and houses choose illegal weed because it's both cheaper and easier to get hold of.

Umm no, they submit thousands of random pages of business communication and system spec in discovery. This does not include the source code of their algorithm, which in any case if not stored in any form which can be recreated and shared. If you pay a lawyer a million bucks to read them all it would say that they don't know how the algo works. At the same time they offer you low four digits to make the case go away, if you have a case. If you don't have a valid case at all, they rapidly spend $250,000 on filings and motions which you would have to spend $100,000 to stay in the game.

The "transaction outside usual hour range" seems pretty basic.

I don't usually buy gas, coffee or snacks at 2am. But on the very rare occasion that I do, I'm dealing with some kind of personal emergency and don't also want to have to call my bank.

I get that that's also a time opportunistic thieves, etc, might be operating. But the cost of false positives is also a thing.

But I used nonstandard nonces!