We need to implement a full stop on any data that is less than about a year old. EVERYTHING after that is suspect. Flag it in red, so even the "casuals" can see that it's not verified. I know, how do you do that? No idea. But I'm sure people will want to throw AI at finding the AI fakes. And that will work really well
I'm not sure online sales were ever part of Walmart's core competencies; I suspect they contracted all that stuff out to third parties.
The reason I suspect that is that one of my relatives bought a product from Walmart.com and needed to return it, so she called the number listed on the front page of the Walmart.com web site (and dialled it correctly; I later double-checked the call record on her phone against the walmart.com web page), and the representative who answered put her on hold, then forwarded her to a scammer who tried to trick her into allowing him to TeamViewer in to her computer remotely. When she refused, he got increasingly abusive and eventually hung up on her.
So whomever Walmart was contracting for online support, they were at least bribable, and arguably criminal.
They'd better be giving these refrigerators out for free, or at an insane discount that they plan to make up for via ad revenue. Otherwise, there's no reason for that feature to exist.
Everybody in society must [...]
Solutions starting with "everybody in society must" have a long and celebrated tradition of going immediately (and often horrifically) pear-shaped, as it inevitably turns out that most of everybody doesn't want to, and therefore won't, and in many cases, can't.
For examples, see the Soviet Union's Communism, China's Great Leap Forward, the Khmer Rouge's agricultural collectivism, North Korea's juche, etc.
Because that is the level of our best AI - an intern.
... this year. And next year, the same logic will have us getting rid of all of the entry-level employees, and the year after that, the mid-level employees, and some years from now, all employees. Yay, progress?
So how long before the jokes all comedians tell all sound the same (same theme, same setup, same punchline)?
Comedians will do anything that works to get a laugh, but sourcing jokes from ChatGPT (or similar) is not an effective way to get a laugh. Comedy is based on surprise, and LLMs are based on summarizing old material, so there's a bit of a mismatch there.
This is a great time to remind ourselves that a LLM is just a fancy autocomplete engine.
Well, sure, in the same way a 747 is just a fancy mechanical bird. Which is to say, yes, but no.
The Golden Age of television was the 40s and 50s. It's been over for about 70 years.
If it's the will of the person?
Because people aren't solitary islands whose deaths harm only themselves. Anyone who has lived on Earth for more than a few days has formed relationships with other people, and suicide is the murder of a person those people have a relationship with. Suicide harms everyone who interacts with or depends on that suicider for anything, in much the same way that the murder of that person would.
Being dead, after all, is just like being stupid, only people around you are bothered by it.
Yes, that is precisely the problem.
Americans HAVE SAID THAT THEY have been placing less importance on the value of a college education over the past 15 years, to the point that about a third (35%) now rate it as "very important." Forty percent think it is "fairly important," while 24% say it is "not too important."
No survey ever tells you what anyone believes. It only tells you what they SAY about the subject. It's an important distinction, and makes the survey even more damning.
Lean on your keyboard for long enough and you'll have a valid Perl program. You won't know what it does of course, but then how does that differ from any other Perl program?
Perl was way ahead of its time... they were doing "vibe coding" back in the 1990's
All a central planning system does is take a very small number of incredibly greedy people and put them in charge of everything, with no way to swap them out.
That it is not a workable approach should be obvious from a computational standpoint. How much processing power would be required to "solve" economic questions for a billion people? More than exists. Certainly, more than can be computed by a planning committee.
All true, which is why China's system isn't completely centralized like that. Centralization is a matter of degree, not a binary on/off switch. The Chinese government mandates the broad strokes, and leaves the detail work decentralized, to be handled by the market. They've got a lot more capitalism in their system at this point than they'd probably care to admit.
Waymo is currently at 250,000 autonomous rides per week, in six cities, and I mean autonomous in the strict sense of "there are no Waymo employees in the car". They seem to be competing pretty well.
As for how other companies will compete against Tesla in the future when Tesla finally makes good on their ambitious promises.... we'll find out, if and when Tesla finally makes good on their ambitious promises. You shouldn't count those chickens until they've hatched.
The truth is that unless you have a lot of money to invest (10's of millions or more), you will only get bad financial advice. Hence the one thing you can do is become an expert yourself.
That reminds me of the Mark Twain quote: "Good judgement is the result of experience, and experience is the result of bad judgement".
i.e. you certainly can become an expert yourself, eventually, but you'll probably make some sub-optimal financial decisions in the process.
Exactly. This is why my blood pressure spikes whenever I see some damn kid (#GOML) squeaking that "comments are a code smell."
The original point has been lost, corrupted into cargo-cult stupidity.
"Neighbors!! We got neighbors! We ain't supposed to have any neighbors, and I just had to shoot one." -- Post Bros. Comics
