orsorna

Do we all win the same equity vesting schedule?

This is sort of the explanation I was looking for. So I've learned this is a pretty good snowboard sim and that people really love it, but those aren't as enticing factors as the game just being hard to find. N64 emulation is still not really there and probably never will be so a decomp makes sense.

There are idea guys that thought it was funny to decompile an obscure N64 game with little cultural and nostalgic attention, and they found themselves at the intersection of special interest doers which they could egg on into doing it?

More I am just confused for why the game was chosen. SM64, Zelda OoT for example I could easily understand the community motivations behind decompiling. This not so much, which makes the whole endeavor even cooler.

Awesome, but I always wondered why so much effort was put into decompiling this? Seems like a meme for meme's sake.

About three quarters of the "bad" choices are things that not only do I not care about leaking but things that an employer would not punish you for doing, even if it led to a production incident.

What does your tangent about feelings have to do with the fact that the money is illegally allocated? That is the theme OC is pointing out.

Some don't treat months as discrete units. Uber revokes your membership immediately.

"Don't just paste a URL to a search engine query containing my question."

I would probably hate someone if they were buying the same hardware as me but doing something actually useful with it. Any game worth playing doesn't require high specs anyway. There is such a large catalog of old games.

None of these are the "norm". The IDEs OC mentioned all have a much larger install base.

> I too needed cash to pay rent, to buy food, to pay Maggie—the human still charging me a flat rate of 150 bucks

I really found it hard to sympathize with the author at this point. If you're in a crunch you don't need to pay a maid to clean.

>The first time I read about Trump saying that "we" were going to buy Spirit, I thought he meant him personally

He views the federal government as his assets to use and not the people's, I don't blame your confusion. This philosophy at the highest seat of office is unprecedented in America.

I appreciate you clarifying my understanding; yes I understand LLMs are not continuously trained.

>Is your claim that when the second prompt comes in, Anthropic search previous queries and injects the answer into the context window?

Yes. I would be terrified if this could be replicated with an open weight model locally. But this, well we have a general understanding of how these hosted models function we really don't know /exactly/ what they are processing.

It's explained by the near impossibility of isolating requests from each other, and chain of custody of divulged information.

If I send a prompt from identity A, which is the true user identity, you have possibly sent all of identity A metadata to be ingested alongside the prompt to generate response X.

If I /then/ send the prompt from identity B, the prompt has been answered before with metadata from identity A. The black box can consult metadata from response X to generate response Y, thus possibly correlating response Y with the prompt sent by identity A.

A toggle on a UI for a black box model means that the black box model certainly isn't using session memory at all?

I am extremely skeptical of any of these claims, and of other commenters saying they replicated this.

First, the author fed an unpublished draft to Anthropic's hosted model. I assume they did this from their personal account, that may include a credit card or at the very least a pseudonymous name that is uniquely identifiable.

Then, the author fed an unpublished draft to Anthropic's hosted model, except in Incognito or whatever. We are led to assume that, whatever the author did for the second submission, they did so in a way so that Anthropic could not correlate both distinct requests from one another. Perhaps on a second subscription? They don't say. I am highly skeptical they airgapped their requests properly so that it doesn't look like the same user is making the request to the same hosted model.

Then, the author asked a friend to publish the draft. A friend, of which there is probably a digital trail that maps the relationship of the author to their friend.

All of this metadata could be crunched on the backend before the black box spits out a response.

Across all these datapoints, I have high confidence a model of this caliber could put two and two together and determine that the author penned the drafts, not solely because of stylometry, but because there is a clear behavioral pattern tying all three events together.

An assumption made here is that Anthropic doesn't train on chats. Though the author opted out of training on their chats, and session memory, how could you trust a hosted model to respect such opt outs?

>and the migration from the previous operating environment to the new one took longer and caused more disruption than anyone wanted

I mean, this is unacceptable by any metric. Downtime for a platform like this means lost revenue. If Amazon was down for weeks at a time how do you think that would affect them as a retailer? So at this point I can't imagine what the mystery purchasers are getting, certainly not a steady revenue stream? I can't imagine the user data is that valuable for such a niche market focus. Over the coming weeks and months, I will be delighted to observe more embarrassing fumbles from your nameless owners, and whoever you are because I suspect your given name is false as well.

With such kits you are generally supposed to remove the parts from the runners with nippers and then sand those nubs down.

They probably also take home more income since they are getting raises more often which allows them to purchase free time to further hone their skills, rather than collecting a fixed wage and minimal equity from a corporation and the satisfaction of their work being minimally rewarded for five years.

Just remember that AI has lowered the skill ceiling to produce a lot of things. But it hasn't lowered the bar for taste :)

The calculus is: is the labor spent on saving 14k annually worth less than the labor which adds features that net 14k income?

Certainly the former is more predictable than the latter though.

Choosing to do neither is wasting money.

Superiority is absolutely a distinguishing feature when preserving their populations and distinctions. It's why racial genocides even occur.

I always appreciate savings posts, but is $14k USD annual really make or break for a Turkish business? I would not know.

I'm having a very hard time understanding a society where research is openly conducted on innate physiological differences between people, and bad actors don't use this official research to practice open discrimination. The lesser of the two evils is to draw a line and tell people to just accept these differences.

>And then the dogma that we are all the same is co-opted by people who would see their ethnic group wiped out

Are you referring to certain people? People sympathetic to Palestinians? I mean yeah obviously it's wrong to preach equity for me but not for thee, but I'm not really going to get into a pissing match about Israel/Palestine, sorry, because that's deflection from my point.

So there are two choices here:

1) Allow scientific discussion on physiological differences or avoid it. Particulary, physiological differences that don't necessarily effect health outcomes but also performance metrics.

2) Do not allow such discussion, and declare an axiom: normalize physiological differences across homo sapiens.

You're right to call the latter dogma, although not in the pejorative sense.

You brought this infamous conflict up to propose that because option two can be used by bad actors, then we should not normalize option two, and freely discuss physiological differences between people.

If you are of a group that has physiological differences scientifically proven to be inferior, you are immediately in an outgroup. You will experience discrimination. Because few (and I'm being generous, perhaps no one truly) can talk about physiological differences without building and holding prejudice. Pragmatically that is just not the case. It's why endless ethnic conflicts exist.

I simply cannot formulate an argument for why this should ever be allowed. It sounds like a horror show if you're on the receiving end. A horror show minorities of many types live through every day.

To lay "ground rules" so that we do not scrutinize our fellow brothers and sisters on unalienable traits is an ethical imperative to prevent us tearing each other apart. This then leaves only one line, the line where people are more than happy to discriminate based on these unalienable traits, and I think it's perfectly acceptable to ostracize them since they encourage ripping each other's throats out, willingly or as a useful peon.

I really don't care if the people around me have physiological differences from me. It would be wonderful to explore that and such differences. But as OP pointed out the discussion gets co-opted by people who would kill others over physiological differences. How is such a viewpoint conducive to a peaceful society where millions of people with physiological differences exist?

For good reason, the wider community isn't able to have a productive conversation about it. I wouldn't even call that a noble reason, but a necessary one, unless you would be okay with inviting people that want you dead into discussion on scientific consensus.

The Gumroad CEO infamously fired and rehired everyone as contractors, and worked for DOGE last year until his delusions were shattered. It seems that your experience doesn't come from nowhere.

Preserving commit history pre-merge only seems useful if I had to revert or rebase onto an interstitial commit. This is at odds with treating PRs as atomic changes to the code base.

I might have not stated my position correctly. When I mean "squash on merge", I mean the commit history is fully present in the PR for full scrutiny. Sometimes commits may introduce multiple changes and I can view commit ranges for each set of changes. But it takes the summation of the commits to illustrate the change the engineer is proposing. The summation is an atomic change, thus scrutinizing terms post-merge is meaningless. Squashing preserves the summation but rids of the terms.

Versioned releases on main are tagged by these summations, not their component parts.

If the code base is idempotent, I don't think showing commit history is helpful. It also makes rebases more complex than needed down the line. Thus I'd rather squash on merge.

I've never considered how an engineer approaches a problem. As long as I can understand the fundamental change and it passes preflights/CI I don't care if it was scryed from a crystal ball.

This does mean it is on the onus of the engineer to explain their change in natural language. In their own words of course.

[flagged]