tempfile

> Advocate for the rights of American citizens and not of those streaming illegally across the borders.

Yes, indeed, if the democrats were only more performatively cruel to illegal immigrants then I am sure they would win more elections. Why even tack that comment at the end? Do you really think democrats are supporting illegal immigrants at the expense of Americans?

Here was a cute idea I thought of. Divide the triangle into 4 by joining the midpoints (a "triforce" shape). The four triangles are congruent, each equal to a quarter of the larger triangle. Generate a uniform 1/4 probability event in your favourite way (flip two coins) and accordingly choose one of the triangles to contain your point. Repeat this indefinitely to get an exponentially small triangle containing your point.

I think this should be a uniform distribution by symmetry. Obviously the boundaries of the triangles never get picked but that's a measure 0 set.

> And yet you live in society. Curious!

>> Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare.

> I just don't understand this mentality.

I don't understand. Wasn't your original comment opposing an equal value waiver?

> We are lucky that we can afford to do this.

> It doesn't affect our situation at all. Why would we oppose it?

This is rather noble of you, but the reason is obvious. If the playing field were "levelled" then you wouldn't have to be lucky. It is all well and good that you are lucky, but there is a certain population who want to emulate your choice but are unable to, because they are missing precisely the marginal amount that the childcare provision costs. It is a political choice to say that those people should not be able to pursue home-care of the children in order that we can avoid giving out a rebate.

I was with you til the end, so now I need to ask what you really mean by "greedy jobs". I took it to mean jobs that are all-consuming, no fixed hours, high pressure, high stress. If that is what you mean then I seriously doubt your claim that there are few non-greedy jobs that contribute to the economy. The vast majority of jobs are non-greedy by this definition, unless the US has really regressed so far from Europe as to be unrecognisable.

Unfortunately this is a strawman. They said remote workers were more available than in-office workers. Not that in-office workers weren't working when they were unavailable.

Water companies in the UK operate under regional monopoly, so most people only get a single company they can buy water from.

The free market approach seems to require allowing water companies to even build and maintain parallel infrastructure that can't be shared, if they consider it to be economical. That would require immense capital investment, meaning the barrier to entry would likely be very high. The "efficient" case, where joining an existing pipe infrastructure is cheap, due to competition, would entail having several parallel networks of pipes running between reservoirs and people's homes. This was viewed as profoundly wasteful, even by the Thatcher government that privatised water, and that's why it's forbidden by regional monopoly.

What's the "easy fix"? Mass deportations?

Very good of you to go looking, thank you!

But what does that have to do with your comment? "a sure fire way to wind them up and get your collar felt" is more about being hassled by police, not really what power relation you have to the executive branch of the government.

Also it is not really true that "free speech" and "freedom from consequences of your speech" are separate. Protecting free speech literally means protection from consequences, if there are no consequences then there's nothing to protect you from.

But this is not a free speech issue. I don't think there is anywhere this would not be protected speech.

It is not hard to understand (which is not to say you have to agree with it). It merely puts a significant weight on the intent and expected outcome of the speech. In the case of screaming "I love bacon" at a Muslim it is obvious that the intent is to make people feel unwelcome and probably intimidated, which is not excusable. In this case it is an understandable, if not ideal, emotional reaction to a heated situation.

Doesn't every win for the common employee encourage companies to be as broad as possible? What would count as a "real win" by your standard?

> What period of history is that talking about?

I also thought this was suspicious, and I believe now that it is just made up.

> Unfortunately over the years there have been cases of people forking the project in the attempt to set up a competing service. And it hurts.

I am literally incapable of sympathising with this situation. Seriously, what did you expect to happen?

That's interesting, I thought the Linux Foundation just existed to give corporations somewhere to put their money without it actually making an effective difference.

I followed the link with an ad-blocker enabled and saw nothing.

Case in point, 4chan

I am not sure how this proposal deals with the problem of templating. If you have a bunch of documents (say, blog articles) that should have a consistent layout, you are going to want to create a template for them. But then the document you see isn't the "true" document, and in order to save the content you're going to have to annotate it to "reverse" the templating.

If it does this, then it is very exciting indeed, but I could not see it.

Sounds worth reading. Is this the article you mean? https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Systemd

If it's not OFL, it goes in the bin.

Consider that even the named phenomenon is sloppy: "recursive self improvement" does not imply "self improvement without bounds". This is the "what if you hit diminishing returns and never get past it" claim. Absolutely no justification for the jump, ever, among AI boosters.

> If AI ever gets to human-level intelligence

This picture of intelligence as a numerical scale that you just go up or down, with ants at the bottom and humans/AI at the top, is very very shaky. AI is vulnerable to this problem, because we do not have a definition of intelligence. We can attempt to match up capabilities LLMs seem to have with capabilities humans have, and if the capability is well-defined we may even be able to reason about how stable it is relative to how LLMs work.

For "reasoning" we categorically do not have this. There is not even any evidence that LLMs will continue increasing as techniques improve, except in the tautological sense that if LLMs don't appear to resemble humans more closely we will call the technique a failure. IIRC there was a recent paper about giving LLMs more opportunity processing time, and this reduced performance. Same with adding extraneous details, sometimes that reduces performance too. What if eventually everything you try reduces performance? Totally unaddressed.

> It that an insane belief worthy of being a primary example of a community not thinking clearly?

I really need to stress this: thinking clearly is about the reasoning, not the conclusion. Given the available evidence, no legitimate argument has been presented that implies the conclusion. This does not mean the conclusion is wrong! But just putting your finger in the air and saying "the wind feels right, we'll probably have AGI tomorrow" is how you get bubbles and winters.

I honestly am not trying to be rude when I say this, but this is exactly the sort of speculation I find problematic and that I think most people in this thread are complaining about. Being able to tell Claude to have a go has no relation at all to whether it may ever succeed, and you don't actually address any of the legitimate concerns the comment you're replying to points out. There really isn't anything in this comment but vibes.

Why should there be a balance between archiving (a useful social good) and exploitation by a platform of copyrighted material they did not create and do not own?

Did your comment always say "most spectra"? I swear it was "a spectra" before. Sorry, I must have misread.

This take is very naive and should anticipate the obvious criticism: people did try, very very hard, to create structured information systems. They simply did not work. The sort of systems people tend to build are well-scoped for a particular problem, but fall apart completely when moving out of that domain. It is very easy to imagine an information system that results in correct answering of flag questions. It is a wide open problem to come up with a way of tagging information that works well for flag questions and for questions about memes, or art. It's not like Google didn't try!

Programming languages are not on a spectrum. I guess they dislike the syntax of JS and the low-level no-batteries of C.

> But no, it’s not fine, because the same person was working for a salary of €0 just a few years ago and likely has nowhere close to €700k of random savings stashed away for paying some taxes.

By your own admission, this person earned almost a million euros in the past 3 years.

> While websites serve both human readers and LLMs, the latter benefit from more concise, expert-level information gathered in a single, accessible location.

This honestly made me laugh out loud.