There is quite a lot of room in between not getting it, and "thinking it is necessary for survival".

Most people just think "it is something compelling for a price they can accept". They just have different opinions than you of what is compelling and what is a price they can accept.

A month of ad free TV costs about the same as two beers at a pub around here, and less than a movie ticket. For a lot of people it probably don't need to be super compelling before that is a price they can accept.

That's definitely not "the point of podcasting". That is like saying "The point of online news is to be lean and efficient. You don't need investigative reporters and editors."

Or that the point of YouTube videos is to be cheap and done by a single guy with the camera on his phone. You can put such content on YouTube, but you can also put expensive productions there.

Podcasting is just a medium that you can put whatever content you want in. You can produce cheap content, with just a guy talking whatever comes to his mind, or you can produce expensive content that require hard work and long preparations.

Just because it is audio only, doesn't mean it's only meant for cheap content.

What else are people supposed to ask?

The people that like the feature are not going to ask any questions about how to keep the feature.

I would guess that the people getting those bonuses will almost certainly have a passion for their work, and will want to continue working in the same area.

Like I said before, it's for free publicity. They needed cheap phones to give away because it gives publicity. You can't sign anyone up for a contract in this scenario, so they need to buy prepaid phones. The anonymity is a side effect.

You do not believe tech CEOs already had the ability to buy themselves burner phones, in case they wanted to call the governor anonymously?

But they do not need to be given a phone for this. Anyone can just buy themselves a burner phone if anonymity is the goal.

Handing out free phones does not in any practical way actually make it easier for a tech CEO to conduct anonymous business with the governor. They had this ability already.

Pretty obviously it's for free publicity.

In what scenario would tech CEOs need to be given a phone, in order to talk to the governor anonymously?

Isn't "burner phone" just slang for a cheap phone with a pre-paid SIM card? I have seen it used like that on travel related subreddits.

The anonymity is then not necessarily an important feature, but a side effect of it being cheap so it's not worth the hassle of registering it.

For some people the anonymity is of course an important feature, but not for everyone.

How would we distinguish actual guardrails, from talk about guardrails being present in the training data?

Or for that matter, if there are guardrails, does it prevent some deep inner thought, or does it only prevent random hallucinations where it says it is conscious?

The real estate value argument never made sense to me.

It seems it would only work if everyone plays along. Every single individual profits by saving money if they don't keep their employees in the office. They only profit from return-to-office if everyone does it.

And I don't see how thousands of narcissistic, egomaniacs that would sell their own grandmother if it raised the stock price by 1%, could possibly coordinate a conspiracy without a lot of them trying cheat.

There is no reason to believe either was a lie. Methods and data collection improve, so results changing over time is not unexpected.

Where do you live where this would be the proper thing to say?

The number of cheaters is obviously much higher than those numbers though. That's only the ones that get caught with "genetic evidence".

Don't forget that a lot of "common knowledge" is also wrong. The controversial opinions are what brings in the clicks, and spreads like wildfire.

Some women will have 6-6-6 as a minimum. Some have it as a dream goal. Others don't care.

Since it is very easy to find men that has neither of those three criteria, we can easily conclude it's not "the current criteria amongst women".
At worst it's the current criteria among some women.

I'm not sure what you consider "surprising", but the number is 1-2%.
In Sweden it's 1.7%, and other Western European studies have shown similar levels.

It was earlier believed the number was higher, but this seems to be the latest research.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

"We can automate the work your worst programmers are doing"