There was an NBC News report on Elizabeth Warren saying Republican voters had to be suppressed. There was a separate report on Ron DeSantis saying leadership was about fooling the voters. Both are deepfakes. The political season is going to get interesting. When you have people who would invade Comet Ping Pong Pizza with an AR in search of a pedophile ring because they take Alex Jones seriously, imagine what this is going to do.
If these clowns try to keep Rust for themselves and decide how the little people can use it - even if for now it's just the name - the the little people will just give them the finger and feck off back to C++, C#, java or even Python.
Java now requires licensing from Oracle. They started that only back in 2019.
Gotta wonder what kinds of protections for Rust there will be from this sort of thing.
First, my condolences on the loss of your friend.
And for those of you posting bullshit about politics and California and democrat ruined cities and murders, fuck you. Seriously, fuck you to hell. Yes, San Francisco is fucked up; everyone who has been there in the past 10+ years knows that. But San Francisco has had like 10 murders this year, out of millions of people.
SF population: 815,201
SF murders in 2022: 55
murder rate: 6.7 per 100K residents
Baltimore population: 576,498
Baltimore murders in 2022: 333
murder rate: 57.7 per 100K residents
There are different degrees of fcked up. SF is probably shttier than people remember it but it has some ways to go before it reaches the big leagues.
This guy was brilliant technically, having created CashApp, plus had the managerial ability to create and maintain a company, which is very difficult. He created a lot of value and improved a lot of lives with that value.
Was he an asshole? All good managers have to be kind of assholish. After the Scott Adams incident, I read a Harvard Business Review interview with him. He was insightful, and I think a lot of the manager-hate comes from this kernel of truth:
HBR: Employees who worked at your restaurant have said that you’re not a very good manager. As one put it, “Scott should be shielded from tough decisions the way a crawling infant needs to be protected from household hazards.” True?
Adams: They were probably too kind. You know, there’s a tough balance involved in being a manager. You can’t be too liked, and I like to be liked, so I’m completely incapable of being a day-to-day manager. So, yes, I was largely incompetent at that and many other things I did. With the restaurant in particular, I had gone into that to be an investor, not a manager. I ended up doing a little managing toward the end just to see if I could make a difference, and I didn’t.
We need a certain level of assholishness in our society to keep things running smoothly. Managers, law enforcement, any kind of authority that requires any direction to be applied to people. You don't have to like people like this, just accept they are necessary and important. And appreciate the value that they create, from building companies that pay us, to enforcing laws that benefit all of us.
Dimon also cautioned against knee-jerk changes to the regulatory system. He wrote that most of the risks, including the potential losses from held-to-maturity bonds, were "hiding in plain sight."
Complexity in regulations breeds loopholes. It's a well known concept:
Markets work best when rules are simple, easy to understand, and easy to enforce. The CFPB is seeking to move away from highly complicated rules that have long been a staple of consumer financial regulation and towards simpler and clearer rules. In addition, the CFPB is dramatically increasing the amount of guidance it is providing to the marketplace, in accordance with the same principles.
Regulators have historically issued overly complicated and tailored rules for the existing regulatory landscape, as opposed to providing basic bright-line guidance and rules that can withstand evolution of the marketplace over time.
These financial organizations fought against the bright lines. Instead they wanted carve-outs for every little nuance. Thus the continued instability in the system.
Yes, but in the context of this investigation (pp. 14-15 of the report):
2.9 Potential for Risky Emergent Behaviors Novel capabilities often emerge in more powerful models.[ 60, 61] Some that are particularly concerning are the ability to create and act on long-term plans,[ 62] to accrue power and resources (“power-seeking”),[63] and to exhibit behavior that is increasingly “agentic.”[64] Agentic in this context does not intend to humanize language models or refer to sentience but rather refers to systemscharacterized by ability to, e.g., accomplish goals which may not have been concretely specified and which have not appeared in training; focus on achieving specific, quantifiable objectives; and dolong-term planning. Some evidence already exists of such emergent behavior in models.[ 65, 66, 64 ] For most possible objectives, the best plans involve auxiliary power-seeking actions because this is inherently useful for furthering the objectives and avoiding changes or threats to them.19[ 67, 68] More specifically, power-seeking is optimal for most reward functions and many types of agents;[69 , 70, 71] and there is evidence that existing models can identify power-seeking as an instrumentally useful strategy.[29 ] We are thus particularly interested in evaluating power-seeking behavior due to the high risks it could present.[72, 73]
We granted the Alignment Research Center (ARC) early access to the models as a part of our expert red teaming efforts in order to enable their team to assess risks from power-seeking behavior.
If it ever engages in power-seeking behavior, it could become a problem. In this case, yes, it was provoked into doing so.
This is like the American limit on showerhead waterflow of 2.5 GPM. Annoying, but there are workarounds.
I'm surprised that non-animal milk-style products aren't forced to be labeled with ominous warning labels.
Blame the idiots who won't let anyone build more because sprawl = bad or something.
It doesn't appear to be lack of physical product that drove house prices; rather, at least during the pandemic, it appears to be a demand surge caused by low interest rates (the abstract has the key points).
It's the same old thing: the consolidation of the production-of-value.
That means value (i.e. things that people value) is created by fewer people using machines to increase their ability to create those things of value, be they goods (real or virtual) or services.
When the Industrial Revolution happened, cottage industries like textile generation and subsistence farming were devastated. As production became centralized and generated more and more, in farming and manufacturing and with business processes, fewer people could generate more value.
Here's a caution though: Pharmacists, lawyers, truck drivers have not been made obsolete by technology.
Another caution is this, and it's a big one: Programming is hard and complex. Many people poo-poo programming. They think because they can do simple programming tasks, programming is easy. Any idiot can do it. Low barrier to entry. Programming is, however, like math and writing. Because you can add 2+2 doesn't mean you can do advanced mathematics. Because you can write "See dog run. Run dog run" doesn't mean you can write a novel or a college textbook. Look at how Musk rolled into Twitter and was a bull in a china shop, thinking his people would master the codebase effortlessly, but instead, breaking things.
C has 32 keywords. The alphabet has 26 letters. There are 10 decimal digits and four key operators: addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Just because you can do basic manipulation of these core character sets doesn't mean you can do advanced work with them. Linus Torvalds said that he was still working on the kernel because it's hard to program well. Linus is very, very smart and one of the top programmers in the world (Linux, git, etc).
By the way, C++ has 95 keywords; Java has 51. Those are bigger character sets than the alphabet and there are a myriad ways to combine those keywords. And even then, think about what's happening: the words are translated into machine code and then translated into boolean algebra equations as they are run through the circuits of the processor. That's quite a bit of complexity.
Is it possible that AI allows the generation of more value, like the tractor did for the farmer. But, because programming is like math or writing, I don't think AI will replace the human here.
But the problem is, I am also a language model and algorithm, but I am implemented on a biological substrate of neurons instead of silicon. Scientifically, I also have no soul which imbues me with feelings and consciousness, rather these are emergent attributes of my internal algorithm and model. I am just like it, and the arguments that I am not depend on a supernatural being imbuing me with qualities not inherit in the physical universe we both inhabit.
The reality is that no one has any idea what actually generates consciousness, intelligence and life. No idea. Hand-waving speculation at a very high level, but even that's not a given. We're just scratching the surface of the quantum world, and surely that plays a role if that underpins the visible reality - if, who knows.
But to say that "I am X therefore Y and Z" - you have no idea if you're X - no one does.
The value of a share is the value of the company divided by the number of shares. This is a definition. It is not my opinion.
Wow. That is completely, and irretrievably wrong. Confidently stated though.
So, this statement shows you should do a bit of reading on the subject. Check out how FINRA defines a company's value, check out what what "market cap" means, and check out how Harvard Business school values a company.
A company's value is defined by its share price (minus its debt). Not the other way around, as you've stated.
with the potential to worsen existing racial and gender biases
Could someone please tell me how gender biases affect sketch portrait generation?
Their objections are a Pavlovian reflex, which is unsurprising.
They seemed unconcerned about whether it will help capture violent offenders, which, regrettably, is also unsurprising.
Non-voting shares, like voting shares, have prices set in the stock market by buyers and sellers. And that set sets the "market cap" of the company. There's no accounting-style "market value" of which each share is a fraction. An illustrative example: there was a deli in New Jersey that did 35,000 in sales and was valued at 100 million dollars in the stock market, which was the total value of its shares. These values are set in the market, just like bitcoin.
Bitcoin has a lot of similarities to non-voting, non-dividend-paying shares. Those have a long history of being treated as assets.
Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.
