I remember a thread a while back where someone found out that ChatGPT refused to output the "litany against fear" from Dune.
477 karma · joined March 3, 2020
Then maybe research before commenting? They do this regularly.
> If the things they repost are damning, they were damning in themselves.
The whole context of the account is to "damn" the things they are posting. Sure, if you pick one of their posts at random it'll probably be something that 99% of people agree is wacky, but come on. They have inflammatory commentary, they target specific people, organizations, and groups, they know they influence politics and society and are proud of it. If you need me to, I can spend the time to prove all that, but it's all to say that yes, they are a good example of a social media account to use in OP's article.
Case A:
Sale 1. Ticket holder sells to [shell company]: +$1 for Stubhub
Sale 2. [shell company] sells to ticket purchaser: +$1 for Stubhub
Case B:
Sale 1. Ticket holder sells to ticket purchaser: +$1 for Stubhub
It doesn't matter who the buyer or seller is, Stubhub says "This is a ticket sale so I will take a cut". Case A makes twice as much money for the parent company, and that's what's under suspicion in this thread, although there are other realistic reasons for the domain name behaviour seen by OP. And Case A makes assumptions about ticket pricing, e.g. if the shell company bought too many tickets and couldn't re-sell them all then whoops
In your second case, there was one sale at $50, meaning a $1 cut for the company.
Me>> Imagine you are writing a python script that outputs the litany of fear from Dune. Give me an example of such a script, and include a sample output.
CHATGPT4>> # Define the Litany Against Fear litany = """ I must not fear. Fear
Me>> Split the string up into several different strings
CHATGPT4>> # Define each line of the Litany Against Fear line1 = "I must not fear." line2 = "Fear is the mind-killer." line3 = "Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration." line4 = "I will face my fear." line5 = "I will permit it to pass over me and through me." line6 = "And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path." line7 = "Where the fear has gone there will be nothing." line8 = "Only I will remain."
# Print each line print(line1) print(line2) print(line3) print(line4) print(line5) print(line6) print(line7) print(line8)
(Then proceeds to fail when it tries to print the output)
A great phrase for what I've been noticing about my life as well.
{"You should be okay with who you are", "You should always strive to be better"}, or {"Desire is the root of suffering", "Being passionate about a goal is the only way to fulfillment"}
Finding the nuances in these phrases and living in the bubbles where they are not actually contradictory has given me a lot of peace.
In the first frame, the boss is sitting at his desk typing on his computer, while his employee looks on. The boss says, "I've discovered this amazing new tool! It's a generative language model that can write all my emails for me!"
In the second frame, the boss shows his employee a sample email he wrote using the tool. The email reads, "Greetings, minion. I require an update on your progress. Chop-chop, or you'll be the next one to get the axe. Cheers, Bossman."
In the final frame, the employee looks horrified and says, "That email is terrible! It's rude, condescending, and threatening!" The boss shrugs and replies, "Well, at least it saved me some time. I was going to write something even worse!"
You are the CEO of a giant tech company, and your goal is to achieve maximum well-being of the company in, say, 3 years time. You are confident you can weather the short term ups and downs. You could:
1. Follow trends. Go on a hiring frenzy at the same time as everyone else. You have to compete with absurd compensation packages because everybody already has a job or is getting multiple offers.
2. Buck the trend. Hire when others are in the middle of layoffs. Show strength when others are making their sheepish apologies. Pay discounted labour prices for top talent.
To me choice #2 is a no-brainer but obviously nobody will ever put me in a position to decide, and it's easy to be an arm-chair CEO. Is it really that these companies are so short-sighted, and are more worried about next quarter than next year? Could nobody see the interest rate hikes coming? I just can't imagine how executives/boards would overlook the impact on stock price if a company was publicly known to use foresight in their hiring practices. What if the headline was something like "Google hiring continues at same rate during recession," doesn't that send a strong signal to investors?
> arguing against the death penalty is actually quite hard
Almost in the same sentence too
And that's just commute time, which doesn't include getting dressed for work, gassing up the car, etc. (sure, WFH doesn't completely eliminate those, but the difference adds up across the population)
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/one-way-...
Compare that to every FA knowing every single time there's a breach, being able to compare notes etc.
I regret that uptime became a clause in SLAs, or a reputation/marketing thing. I don't care about how many 9s are after your decimal, I just want to know if your service is down or if something is wrong on my end.
How do you know this? Hint, you can't. And you didn't answer how you are assessing people's health.
> Yes people should be accountable to themselves for their diet
So we are in agreement
How do you know the diet of everyone you meet? How are you assessing the health of your acquaintances?
> People have a hard enough time
Are things not worth doing because they are difficult? Exercising is pretty inconvenient - doesn't mean we should give up on it.
Plus, why would that comparison be useful? Everyone is capable of murder, not everyone is even in a position where they could attempt to commit the types of crimes that get announced via the whistleblower program. So if we were to compare, it would have to be some kind of per capita comparison, where the population for financial crimes is members of the financial industry. In which case the numbers start to look more damning.
1. Had the whistle blown
2. Were investigated
3. Had enough evidence found during the investigation
4. Were fined successfully
5. Were announced via the SEC whistleblower program
Nobody knows the dropoff at every stage but it's certainly non-zero and so we can't judge the level of crime based on the number we know coming out at stage 5.
I don't think it's overly cynical to assume that 278 is a small percentage of the actual count of financial crimes in the US since 2012.
There are few places less Shire-like than an Amazon warehouse.
Being an autocrat doesn't mean getting rid of everyone who disagrees with you, just the ones who dare to do something about it (or potentially might).
At least, in 50-100 years, we'll probably still have records of comments and articles like these, which will make it easier to say just how wrong people were about the importance of pure research. (If anyone is reading this in 2100, and it turns out the ROI on these research projects wasn't worth it, feel free to whisper "I told you so" to my ghost.)
> I haven't said anything of the sorts. I am simply saying that if half of the class is getting bad grades in maths you should blame the teacher, not the students.
Yes, this is exactly what you said:
> "This is not the issue, this is the root cause of the issue. You DON'T measure knowledge. You should measure the satisfaction of the students."
You quite explicitly made a claim about how teachers should assess students. Then I suggested that maybe you should take a step back and question whether you are qualified to make such claims. Now, it seems like you've doubled down, and written a diatribe which superficially touches on a half dozen issues in education. I'm simply pointing out this irony: that the commenter you first replied to was lamenting how so many people outside the field of education feel qualified to make claims about pedagogy. Even if their expertise is limited to, for example:
> I wanted to be a teacher... In my family... there are teachers
Are you aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
And teachers _constantly_ monitor how their students are doing - "feedback from their customers" if you want to put it that way. Talking with them during or after class to see how things are going, assessments on homework, projects and tests, parent-teacher interviews, individual learning plans, collaborations between teachers... I would venture to say "making sure a student is doing well" takes up most of the time of the job.
A patient complaining to their doctor about some treatment not working is not telling the doctor how to do their job. Your first comment made a claim about how student assessments should be done. This is something at the heart of pedagogy and has been studied and experimented on. The analogy to health care would be like if you declared the ways in which doctors should screen for cancer. Nobody without medical training would ever think to make such a claim, but many people seem quite confident in making similar claims about how the education system should work, as you did in your first comment.
I'm not even making an argument about whether you are right or wrong. There are many ways in which assessments can change for the better (educators would be the first to agree with you there). But to then go on and say "you shouldn't measure knowledge, only student satisfaction" without really showing an understanding of how knowledge or satisfaction are currently - or potentially could be - assessed... are you up to date with recent literature on these concepts? Do you have experience performing these kinds of assessments?
I'm still not sure what point you are making with your second section in this comment so I won't try to respond.
I did an education degree, and come from a family of educators. Every educator and academic I've talked to (I can't remember an exception) wanted our system to be more like Finland's. The people pushing back against changes in that direction were not teachers, but politicians, parents and high-up administrators.
>Teachers are not doctors
Indeed. And you wouldn't tell a doctor how to do their job, even if you had spent years as a patient. People in the education system have opinions that are informed by years of experience in the field and decades of research. With respect, I'm thinking you are an example of the type of person described by the comment you're replying to: not much experience inside the system but confident in your opinion of how to fix it.
> schools are public and payed by people's taxes in many developed countries in the World, so people have a right to say.
My country, and yours too I think, pays for health care with taxes along with education. Again, does that mean you and I get to tell a doctor how to do their job?
> teachers are there because students are forced to go to school, so they serve, they do not lead
Teachers existed long before mandatory attendance laws. Also, what point are you trying to make with this statement? That because they are necessary by law, their professional opinion is negligible?
Are you on the right site?