> The revisions, which are preliminary, are part of an annual process in which monthly estimates, based on surveys, are reconciled with more accurate but less timely records from state unemployment offices. The new figures, once finalized, will be incorporated into official government employment statistics early next year.
Or you could just assume everything is a stupid conspiracy
How do you buy 10,000,000,000 (let alone 10x that much) of something as a junior trader without someone signing off on it? There's nothing at all to stop catastrophic actions being taken by anyone in the organization?
That's incorrect. There's nothing inherently inaccessible about the title attribute.
Voiceover, for example, reads the content of title attributes.
There are a bunch of reasons why title is pretty useless (the main one being it does nothing on every touch screen interface, where the concept of hover doesn't exist). But accessibility is not one of them.
That's a huge marketing fail if that's what it made you feel because it would be completely contrary to their messaging during the rest of the iPad event. The 30 minute show was almost entirely about using the iPad in creative pursuits. Illustration, film making, photography, music, etc.
Yeah like, even if he somehow owned 10% of all dollar bills in existence and had a somewhat efficient way of looking them up, his expected value is still only $3,000! Does it really make sense to do all the work of taking your hard-earned, once in a lifetime windfall of $100000 (easily 4x the median annual income at the time, even for a person who had a steady professional job), out of the literal bank where it safely sits making ~10% interest in the mid 80s, and store it in your messy house in drawers and trash bags, for the opportunity to make 3% back? Not the thoughts of a rational person!
Yeah this part bothered me. It's surprising if they really didn't immediately realize randomly looking at single bills was an impossible strategy.
Kind of an interesting problem. Complete sorting in a timely manner is basically not possible because of the physical reality of 100k pieces of paper. But maybe you can group the bills into 100 piles of "last 2 digits", so then for each lookup you "only" have to check 1000 bills. And then later, while searching a group, you can take the time to further sort them by the 3rd digit. I guess it also depends on how long you expect the contest to go on, i.e. how many lookups you will do.
Even with the simplified grouping strategy, let's be generous and assume it takes you 3 seconds to look at a bill, figure out what to do with it, and physically move it to the correct place. That's still 83 person-hours to do a single pass and put the bills into 100 groups for quicker lookup. With 2 people, that's 5 full 8 hour days of non-stop sorting.
Worktrees are pretty great but I don't understand why I can't have the same branch checked out on two worktrees? I get why committing to a branch checked out elsewhere might be bad, but in that case, just prevent me from committing, like "you can't commit because the branch is checked out elsewhere - maybe create a new branch".
It's better in the pragmatic sense of like, it's more likely to be updated. They already have a PDF or docx laying around because they had to design their print menu, so now they can just upload it. But yes, ideally the menu would be html and would be accurate and up to date and responsive on mobile.
I can't get past why Netlify's infrastructure continued serving a 3MB file to a botnet 55,000,000 times? I would've assumed their system was smarter than the ubuntu/apache install in my basement.
Getting a user to install software on a desktop is probably one of the hardest things for a company to ask for in 2024. It's wild that you would have built up a userbase of ... tens of thousands? ... of technically knowledgeable people who want your product, get them to install and rely on your product on their actual 2024 desktop computer where they do actual work, then have some decision makers determine "ok time to pull the plug" and you actually follow through with that. It's just incomprehensible.
Understanding how python's data structures work is actually really important and can make the difference between an algorithm completing in microseconds vs "basically never". Performance problems in python are going to come down to these crucial factors of when to use a set vs list vs dict or a dataframe or something else. The fact that it's interpreted is just not that significant compared to how data structures are set up and operated on. People are using python to explore and manipulate very large data - it's the most popular language for doing so.
In 2023 an org of their size and with such sensitive data needs to give a bit more of a fuck about who is accessing users' accounts. Mass leakage of potentially reused credentials is an ancient concept at this point and should have been on their radar as an attack to protect their users' data against. Basically, they shouldn't have just been relying on passwords to authenticate users. Many orgs of their size and with much less sensitive information than the literal genetic data of their users do a lot better.
This sounds like letting perfect be the enemy of good. Insect protein would be a new addition to the protein supply and the food supply. It would provide an additional alternative to meat. It might actually reduce the demand for meat, which would be good. I guess I don't see why the option of insect protein would be bad. In fact, it seems it would be good.
"Open AI and other creators of artificial intelligence technologies are close to releasing tools that make the easy — almost magical — creation of fake videos ubiquitous."
"One leading AI architect told us that in private tests, they no longer can distinguish fake from real"
"This technology will be available to everyone, including bad international actors, as soon as early 2024."
With a cynical viewpoint like this, how would you know the difference between "luxury beliefs expressed just to keep others down and make me look fancy" vs "earnestly held beliefs based on learning, and perhaps I could learn something by considering these beliefs"? Perhaps evaluate the beliefs based on their merit, rather than whose beliefs they are?
Weirdly enough, every anecdote I've heard about Pokemon cards is that they are collected far more than played, and that most people who own them don't know how the game works.
> The stolen OpenAI credentials were stolen using Raccoon Infostealer (78,348), Vidar (12,984), and RedLine (6,773) malware variants.
> India occupied the top spot with 12,632 OpenAI credentials listed on the dark web, followed by Pakistan (9,217), Brazil (6,531), Vietnam (4,771), and Egypt (4,588), while the United States was sixth with 2,995 compromised accounts.
In the case of an "input your authentication code" page, I'm pretty skeptical that accessibility is a good reason to not focus the only part of the page that a user probably wants to interact with. The screen reader is going to clearly announce something like "input, authentication code" assuming the dev has labeled the input correctly. I'm just having trouble imagining why autofocusing the only input on a page that matters would somehow make the experience worse for specifically users of screen readers.
Currently this works between banks only. Banks have reserves at the Fed, and those reserves are what gets adjusted when a FedNow transaction happens. The banks then adjust their own records on their customers' behalf.
We are so very close to 1) AI escape and 2) AI reproduction. I don't see how broad swaths of humanity stand a chance against ambitious capital holders in combination with AI.
It's true that AI regulation would, in fact, hinder OpenAI's competition.
But... isn't lobbying for regulation also what Sam would do if he genuinely thought that LLMs were powerful, dangerous technology that should be regulated?
If you don't think LLMs/AI research should be regulated, just say that. I don't see how Sam's motives are relevant to that question.
Remember when gmail first came out like almost 20 years ago? You had to get an invite! People loved it. It was a big deal - it made people actually love google. It wasn't just a search engine, it was this awesome company making awesome things and sharing them with you and it just made so much sense. Gmail was a billion times better than the alternatives (hotmail? yahoo mail?) and the competition just looked lazy and bad. The early 2000s was a wild time when the internet and computers got fast enough that it was unleashing all these pent up ideas that suddenly could actually work. But nowadays it's like nobody knows what to do next, so we just spin our wheels optimizing ads and making the world terrible with recommender systems.