scarab92

Either are possible.

They have been collaborating on this solution for a year, and Astra was trained in February this year so it’s entirely possible the direction of their research was in the training corpus.

Why would China care if Taiwan blows up its fabs?

The talent is still there, so they could rebuild, or recruit the talent to work for Chinese mainland fabs instead?

The cost of producing memory IS low, and is continuing to fall.

It makes zero sense to rebase your mental model of the tradeoff between RAM versus developer time because of a temporary shortage.

In a few years time you’ll look silly for having wasted developer time on lowering BF memory consumption, while your built new features and waited for supply and demand to rebalance.

This is why I would never invest in Stripe.

The moat protecting their high margins is temporary.

Competitors will obviously improve their developer experience over time, and then win on price.

Stripe are stuck. They know they need to lower rates over the long term, but since they already make so much profit overcharging existing customers, they are hesitant to do so, meaning new competitors will enter with a price advantage without a competitive response from Strioe.

Adyen will likely overtake Stripe as well. They are at $1.4T already and growing fast.

Stripes fees are uncompetitive, even their negotiated rates, so businesses tend to leave them as their volume grows.

I find those advocating for censorship of right wing voices to be pretty unconvincing, and often acting in bad faith (like this article and its cherry picking)

Reddit and Blue Sky are almost entirely left-wing rage-bait and conspiracy theory content these days, and they amplify such content right to the top of the default feed, yet you rarely see the right calling for these platforms to censor their users.

If the right can learn to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive, then it’s reasonable to expect the left to do so as well, without resorting to these contrived cancel culture talking points.

The vast majority of political violence and riots in the US these days is orchestrated by left-wing movements and individuals. The assassinations of Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk the attempts on Trump, all the riots surrounding BLM and George Floyd etc

Obviously directly inciting violence is not acceptable, but cherry picking obscure instances of it, while simultaneously overlooking the far larger problems that exist on the left, is bad faith. The threads celebrating the murders of Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk are some of the most shared Reddit posts of all time, with zero self-reflection from the left about this double standard.

The default feed is orders of magnitude more visible than the cherry-picked low-follower-count users that formed the basis of this article.

There’s a tremendous double standard here. The offensive right wing content is something you’d have to explicitly search for, whereas the offensive left wing content is front and center.

Wikimedia has enough cash in the bank, to fund wikipedia forever from interest alone.

At this point, 100% of all new funds raised in the name of Wikipedia are actually being diverted to other projects. It’s incredibly deceptive, borderline fraudulent.

If it’s really that important to people, they should be able to raise donations for that program in particular.

Raising funding for Wikipedia, then diverting 90% of the funds for pet projects is dishonest at best, and most likely fraudulent.

The other problem, is that the projects wikimedia foundation has historically funded have a notable political bias, to the point where it has been accused of being a pseudo-PAC.

Is there a way to make the ChatGPT live experience less dumbed down?

It just wants to stay at a superficial level, while annoyingly mimicking human traits like “hmmms” and “umms”

I’ve found the better approach is to dictate into the text version and have it read the response. The responses are way better, so long as they don’t contain a table.

Payment processor margins are already very high, especially considering they are basically low-tech utilities.

If the US had functioning antitrust laws it would be looking at their margins and be considering whether to break up some of the existing players, not considering when allow even more mergers.

Most of us don’t have economist subscriptions.

Maybe you can just tell us what you mean by not neutral?

I find Grok to be far more academically honest than the other models. The other models seem to be much more aligned with public opinion over academic consensus especially on topics around economics and biology.

I find public opinion on these topics to be very group think populist and prefer the academic take that grok provides

Give me an alternative that isn’t trying to shove left wing ideology down my throat and I’ll use that.

So far, only xAI makes any attempt to be neutral in its answers.

Didn’t California effectively legalise shoplifting?

That seems objectively pro-crime.

I’m pretty sure that’s just motivated reasoning. Everyone self-assesses their own beliefs as more accurate, especially as social media over-exposes us to the worst of the worst examples from “the other side”.

I’ve never seen any actual research indicating this is true, and given the number of things the left believes that run counter to consensus in economics, biology, social studies, I have a hard time believing accuracy is actually a goal or outcome of left wing philosophy.

Amazon already delivers to the house next door to yours. The incremental cost of an extra stop is near zero. The efficiency of home delivery vastly exceeds people going to the shops themselves, even if they are stopping at multiple shops.

Not convinced.

Creativity is much easier than reasoning and discernment.

Rarely do I need people to be more creative when problem solving, what I need is better judgement.

I suspect there is a lot of selection bias going on as well.

Forums like this, reddit, X, readers of news sites etc tend to be filled with people that don’t have much going on in their lives, have a lot of free time to comment, are less likely to exploit the benefits of AI, and more likely to have simpler skills sets that are replaceable with AI.

Talking to people in real world, I would say the overwhelming majority are excited by AI and interesting in using it more rather than less.

Very rarely is it appropriate to brainstorm widely.

You want to start with a high level of discernment, focusing on the most plausible theories first, then broadening only if necessary.

If someone started out with crazy low-discernment ideas, I’d probably ask them to leave to stop distracting everyone else.

People opposed to data centres remind me of people opposed to mask wearing.

Both are attempting to dismiss something useful and important, over trivial and manageable issues, mostly for culture war reasons rather than rational reasons.

I don’t care about the hypocrisy as much as the entire anti-datacenter Luddite movement being based on anti-intellectualism to begin with.

Datacenters provide very high utility with very low per capita externalities. There’s really no reason to care this much about them.

People opposed to data centres remind me of people opposed to mask wearing.

Both are attempting to dismiss something useful and important, over trivial and manageable issues.

They still get more engagement on X than on Bluesky.

Also, cross positing the same content on multiple platforms isn’t time consuming.

This is clearly EFF violating their stated commitment to political neutrality, and providing only a superficial and easily discredited rationale for cover.

It’s worth keeping in mind that 16 hours was their single highest day of use ever, not their typical daily use.

I’m sure I’ve spent 16 hours on Netflix or League of Legends in a 24 hour period before, yet my median daily usage is 0 hours, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to describe my usage as an addition either.

I’m not saying people don’t get addicted to social media, they do, but in this particular case I think his description of problematic is adequate, and this headline is unnecessarily confrontational.

Society pretends that human doctors are better than they really are, and AI is worse than it really is.

It's the self-driving cars debate all over again.

Because the fine amount is specific to the harm done by one product line, in one market.

Whereas Apple’s profit figure reflects their total profit across all products and all markets combined.

It’s meaningless comparing these, because it’s not an equal basis of comparison.

Is that the profit for the App Store specifically, in the UK specifically?

If not, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

The compound is located right next to the Thai border, on a section of river that juts into Thailand.

Small parts of the compound actually appear to be within Thailand, at the border resolution Google maps uses: https://www.google.com/maps/place/16%C2%B038'51.2%2522N+98%C...

The Model Y has been iteratively improved since its introduction like any other product, and remains the best selling car in its class in most western markets.

This argument makes about as much sense as saying Apple hasn’t released a new phone since 2007.

What makes sodium-ion batteries so much cheaper than LFP batteries?

Isn’t lithium only about 15% of the cost of an LFP cell to begin with?