Maybe both are true, if someone grows up and learns through a specific monitor, maybe that will influence and define their blue definition.

You are confusing geographical position with countries.

Countries are not a continuum, they start and end at some specific line defined by constitutions, mutually agreed by neighbours (or disputed through war and diplomacy) Colours have no such incentive for strict unified definitions, so there is no point at which blue ends.

I'm not confusing anything. I am 1000% unconfused and entirely on the same wavelength as OP.

You're inability to wrap your head around the analogy is tantamount to.. Not being able to comprehend blue-green.

It’s a terrible analogy though.

But turquoise can be a blue, just because we have a specific word, doesn't mean more general words are invalieated or made as specific.

For example, things can be small or big, a mouse is small, if you refine the vocabulary to include 10 size words, and the mouse is now minuscule, it is still small.

For many people this is like saying 'for you red is blue'.

I have this with a coat, but it's blue vs gray. Would be interesting to generalize this tool not just for other colours, but for other colour properties like saturation not just hue.

Probably being pedantic, but this is not buying Friendster to be precise, usually what is meant by that is that the company was bought.

In this case the domain Friendster.com was bought, and a trademark was conceded (a new different trademark), I don't know precisely the implications of the trademark though, I think it's a different trademark and you still cannot imply that you are a continuation of the previous trademark holder, it's just that you are given monopoly over that word as a trademark.

Now, is that different than buying "Friendster"? A really interesting legal question, I think it is, and I think it has relevant implications, I don't think you can for example restore the website as it was and pretend a continuation as you would if you bought the company.

I think the distinction is warranted.

Honestly if the prior Friendster company itself was bought - including all the assets, codebase and historical documents (no user details) that would've been such an incredibly interesting read.

Buying the domain and getting the trademark is still cool, just not as cool.

fwiw, I think that subjectively it's roughly equivalent in this specific case. The domain name is a huge part of the brand, and is almost equivalent to the list of prior clients.

I think that it will probably be fine if they compete in the same space of a social network, doesn't look like someone is going to go after them, the company that would have a claim against them is defunct, so even if they have a legal argument, who would raise the case? If the owners do so under their personal name it's even a weaker argument.

So in practice, in this case, subjectively I believe that it's effectively very similar as buying the company.

Do you think humans don't have perfect memory because it's hard to achieve and millions of years of evolution haven't been able to? Or because it's convenient to forget in order to prioritize the more important recent information?

It's obviously the latter, a system that 'remembers everything perfectly' is probably not optimal in most senses. Mortality is a property of both life and artificial systems, forcing the same retention policy on new information and old information probably does so at the expense of lifespan or stability.

I think its the latter also. What i was saying is more that we want God AI like but work towards more Human AI like.

Well it was believed that (hu)man was made in the image of God, so perhaps reaching god involves maintaining and even furthering our human-like traits.

I think design-by-nature is consistent with seeking perfection, of course it won't ever be achieved, but organic inspirations can and often help maximize a lot of parameters.

I think this doesn't apply if you reduce temperature to 0. Which you should always do, temperature is like a tax users pay to help the LLM providers explore the output space, just don't pay that tax and always choose the best token.

It's as if they internalized a post-mortem process that is designed to find root causes, but they use it to shift blame into others, and they literally let the agent be a sandbag for their frustrations.

THAT SAID, it does help to let the agent explain it so that the devs perspective cannot be dismissed as AI skepticism.

No, the only way to know what the agent did is logs.

>Railway's failures (plural)

>This is not the first time Cursor's safety has failed catastrophically.

How can you lack so much self awareness and be so obtuse.

There's no section "Mistakes we've made" and "changes we need to make"

1. Using an llm so much that you run into these 0.001% failure modes. 2. Leaking an API key to an unauthroized LLM agent (Focus on the agent finding the key? Or on yourself for making that API key accessible to them? What am I saying, in all likelihood the LLM committed that API key to the repo lol) 3. Using an architecture that allows this to happen. Wtf is railway? Is it like a package of actually robust technologies but with a simple to use layer? So even that was too hard to use so you put a hat on a hat?

Matthew 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?."