Hmm I'm curious which blog post tripped it? I tried a few from your site in 2023 and none of them were flagged as AI generated.
378 karma · joined January 13, 2012
I've had a blog post kicking around about this for a while, it's CRAZY how much more expensive AI detection is than AI generation.
In my mind content generated today with AI "tells" like the above and a general zero-calorie-feel that also trip an AI detector are very likely AI generated.
> Technology costs do decrease. However, demand always migrates to the newest, most powerful models.
> People do not:
> Choose GPT-3.5 because it is cheap.
> Select a lower-tier Claude model on purpose.
People definitely can, and do, both things for many workloads. Coding is an obvious exception, but oftentimes a cheaper model is good enough. And businesses that had to spend $5/MTok on a frontier model last year can probably get similar performance and spend $0.50/MTok or less today.
Crazy that nobody can be bothered to get rid of the obvious AI-isms "This isn't just for...", "The Challenges (And How We Handle Them)", "One PR. One review. One merge. Everything ships together." It's an immediate signal that whoever wrote this DGAF.
Both the OP article and this Times of India article appear to be AI-generated summaries of the original article.
Craziness!
> EDIT: It looks, at best, like a vanity project, and, most likely, a scam. The founder is a television personality [1]. Article claims the firm “currently produces chemical and electric propulsion systems for the aerospace and defence sectors,” yet they somehow have fewer than double checks £5,000 in fixed assets [2]. They hired this real estate and art advisory dude to raise capital for them in 2019 [3][4], who apart from two other individuals [5], is the main outside shareholder. The Princeton Propulsion Systems they’ve “partnered with” is crowdfunding $100,000 [6]. (The latter look marginally legit—I assume Pulsar signed a non-binding LOI with them. That or they’re the £300,000 [2] current liability Pulsar raised money from the real estate and art advisor this January [7] to extinguish.)
Browsing the old union website (https://www.mapboxworkersunion.org/) almost all of the supporters of unionization were on the engineering side of the house, much more than I'd expect if you randomly sampled the org for job titles.
I wonder why that is?
> However, PostgreSQL's planner is currently not very smart about such cases.
(From https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/indexes-index-only-scans....)
I suspect this is just a rough edge. Many types of functions may not be consistent, and therefore would need to be re-executed on the original data. Perhaps some of the planner functionality here predates function notation like `IMMUTABLE`.
According to the spreadsheet, Aetna is always paying 100% of list, and SEIU 1199 is always paying exactly 50%.
Most of the other private providers are listed with almost-flat discounts (85% for CHP, 71% for Empire, 60% for Healthfirst) with a handful of operations at other price points. Cigna has a little more variety but is mostly listed at 51%.
Only Emblem shows real variety across the board, with prices listed from 21.9% to 174%. It also has the lowest mean/median, at 45% and 34% respectively.
I know from personal experience that Aetna does have negotiated rates with NYP, and the flat discounts for all providers other than Emblem are also suspicious.
Similar horrendous effect on the performance of everything else on the computer til I restart the damn browser.
I suppose this could lead to more leaks, but it definitely reduces the page load time.
That being said, your point about web standards being a mess to support without tons of memory usage (and inevitably leaks) is on point.
Actually, checking now -- having left one tab, with only this HN thread left open overnight (and computer closed) FF's memory usage has crawled back up to 2.88GB.
In "Explicit Allocations", 488MB of that are "heap-overhead". 455MB go to js-non-window" , of which 254MB are "zones" and 183MB "runtime". "window-objects" take 279MB, (the js-compartment for about:blank takes 151MB). Another 259MB for "heap-unclassified", and 155MB for "gfx".
In "Other measurements", there are 745MB of "decommitted", of which almost all is "js-non-window". "js-main-runtime" is 666MB, split evenly between "compartemnts" and "runtime" or "zones".
Nothing else is of much significance.
No extensions or plugins seems are explicitly noted in the memory breakdown. In my experience GC, CC, and Minimize Memory Usage make no difference. I do make use of Noscript and Privacy Badger, and I suppose I should try disabling them -- but my gut says disabling plugins that block scripts won't reduce JS memory usage.
Pretty much every time I've checked it really looks like oodles of JS-related memory leakage.
Anyway, not expecting a diagnosis here -- this isn't the appropriate forum for that. Just venting a bit. Thank you for your suggestions!
Rent laws are often blamed for the city's problems in the 1970s, but there were plenty of other issues (underinvestment, depopulation, municipal bankruptcy).
I live in NYC, I have seen this happen.
Of course, it is much more difficult and disruptive to ticket a car that has just blown a red light at high speed, than a biker who has blown a red light. Unfortunately, the city isn't allowed to install red light cams in most places because of Albany. Red light cams would be a safe, fair counterpart to increased red light enforcement for bikes. That being said, very very very few people are injured and none are killed because of bikes running reds (neither collision in Central Park this year was at an intersection). Likely hundreds are injured and at least dozens are killed from cars running red lights every year.
Despite the fact that this is quite illegal, there is no enforcement (http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-labor-department-l...).
It's insane that Google retired this incredibly useful feature without even bothering to comment on it in the official changelog (https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3543688?hl=en). I'm also always amazed at how they completely ignore their customers on their own forums.
At least there's a way around this -- for now.