> Checking out a parallel copy of our Go repository and telling the AI to rewrite the whole thing in Zig while I work on something else just so I can keep my job.
> Was it just sales fluff? The answer was a lot more interesting.... Executives at their customers were saying absurd things about achieving 100x productivity, and this meant that if any executive at the vendor said that these gains were not plausible, it would undermine the credibility of the customer’s executive, be perceived as an attack (or heresy), and possibly result in an enterprise contract cancellation.
> And the moment that happens, Taiwan will instantly vote to rejoin china.
Sounds inflammatory, and also extremely unlikely and has no evidence for it, and also the hyperlinked article, that is supposed to back it up, absolutely does not even try to do so. I don't think reading further is worthwhile.
It’s not that the Chinese firms are any less likely to misuse your data, it’s that you don’t live in china, so their abuse of your data is unlikely to directly impact your day-to-day life in the same way
There's just really no incentive all they really want is just to train on that data to improve performance which in turn actually benefits your usecase since it becomes trained on that data and made available back to you. American labs take that data anyway and store it for years to possibly report you for misuse in the future for whatever reason they want. For example: you're very critical of X so they pull up your conversations and weaponize it.
And what have they done with that data that have caused direct or indirect harm? Yes they shouldn't do that, but there's limited things that they can do to you as an individual.
I don't understand what's hard to understand. Regulation that affects people and devices that have no risk of being used for the purported thing that's supposed to be protected against is not well-scoped.
Obviously if the government knew that you had no kids, they wouldn't need to check it. How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it?
Backwards. The government knows who has kids because they do things like issue birth certificates and operate state schools. In a lot of places it's legally very difficult not to be listed as a parent on government records.
So why should I have to prove I don't have kids when the government can know I'm not on any of those lists?
The government departments know those things because the parents registered on those lists. It doesn’t automatically just “know”, and that info is historically not usually shared between government departments
My entire point is that there's absolutely no need to know if a "random IP connection" is a kid when there are so many mundane reasons to use the internet that aren't objectionable for the hypothetical child who the connection might have behind it. It's the equivalent of making anyone walking into a grocery store show their ID in case they happen to buy alcohol later. I don't drink alcohol either and have no need to buy it, and I'd be similarly incensed if I got carded every time I walked into a store to buy eggs or milk.
I don’t understand why they would ban this rather than charge for it. It seems very likely that destroying unsold clothes is sometimes the socially efficient thing to do, even after taking into account the environmental externalities.
Destroying unsold clothes is financially the most efficient thing to do. It remains unclear to me how taking actions to maintain higher markups on products would be socially efficient in any way. Companies of course can keep doing it, they just will face financial and legislative repercussions for it.
If you can't sell clothes to anyone, then it may be more socially efficient to destroy them than (a) keep them in a warehouse or (b) ship them overseas. Both (a) and (b) can have substantial environmental costs. I don't think it should be hard to come up with other plausible cases. You're assuming there's only one reason companies do this. I don't deny that that's a possible reason. I also don't see why taxing that behaviour would not reduce it.
Once once they are rejected by charities, they can be destroyed just like before this law. EU regulators are flawed humans, but you can be assured that any argument you can come up with in 10 minutes has been considered.
Fair enough, but now I would "solve for the equilibrium" and assume that any large clothing company will have a friendly charity to reject its clothes for it.
Those are used clothes. New clothes, especially from a brand that would use a shredder to have a little more exclusivity? I expect almost all to sell just fine.
Market clearing prices can be negative i.e. you have to pay someone to "buy" them. This regularly happens in commodities markets. In agriculture, for example, negative market clearing prices is why a lot of food ends up in a landfill instead of on store shelves.
That was my initial thought too; just make it a non-deductible charge, ideally, payable from executive compensation.
Or they could also just levy higher taxes/fees on synthetic fibers and clothing that cannot be repaired (there are several reasons), and at the same time support the industry for natural, truly biodegradable fibers and their research?
This seems like more ivory tower navel gazing.
And that doesn’t even touch on all the jurisdictional and financial shenanigans that immediately come to my mind how you can circumvent that.
Government legislatures really should have red team groups that have to be included in legislative processes with the objective of punching holes into legislation.
I keep hearing this but lots of maths problems are practically important! We want to know the answer because it will be useful for applied science, or statistics, or engineering. It’s not all just about knowledge for its own sake.
It was also our initial assumption, but to our surprise there were no signs of models "knowing" the solutions (we investigated all trajectories). Compare and contrast with SWE-Bench Verified, for which models suddenly generate solutions, or at least, have substantial hints, https://openai.com/index/why-we-no-longer-evaluate-swe-bench....
Fair point. English isn't my first language and Waldi grew up Persian-first and I leaned on AI to draft the English readme. I will rewrite it soon (and make it shorter too). the Persian is all me. the English version deserves it too.
I mean did the locals think of the two species as separate? If not then the discovery of a separate species is what’s important, not the knowledge of the physical population. Or was the population previously unknown to researchers?
> Was it just sales fluff? The answer was a lot more interesting.... Executives at their customers were saying absurd things about achieving 100x productivity, and this meant that if any executive at the vendor said that these gains were not plausible, it would undermine the credibility of the customer’s executive, be perceived as an attack (or heresy), and possibly result in an enterprise contract cancellation.
A lot of excellent anecdotes here.
reply