Not really, jealous is defined as envious (being envious is one of the definitions of being jealous).

For common usage they are equivalent, e.g. I'm jealous of X is the same as I'm envious of X.

They may be equivalent in common parlance, but that’s a bit like saying it is ok to use ‘your’ instead of “you’re” just because it is so common.

We say “jealously guarded’ not ‘enviously guarded’ for a reason. Jealousy is about being protective of your own possessions and relationships; you feel jealousy if your spouse responds well to a coworker’s flirtations. Envy is when you find think of the coworker’s luck in having a good looking spouse

The real reason people do it:

1. It's quick

2. It's not their problem anymore because they've replied.

No amount of hand-wringing is going to change that.

And nobody gives a fuck at work anymore.

Directives want results, positive numbers and growth. How well done is and the queality of the product is something trivial.

Until february/april I was super dead serious about the quality of my apps and my code, I was super strict and always looking for excellence and quality. But people were delivering shit faster than me and someone who doesnt give a fuck about anything of this just got promoted. So now i just let opencode do my work while I watch and play dota in the background. I deliver faster and nobody has ever talked about quality of my code or the ellegance of it.

I still programming by hand in my personal projects, but in corporative projects? Fuck it, i'll let the llm do my job until it lasts and Ill watch the world burn.

Based

And we are to believe they don't have FDE on their application servers?

Ah but is the model's belief of the statements 1. complete, 2. consistent, 3. decidable?

I think this is a category error. Those are properties of systems of logical axioms.

But LLMs are not logical; they are statistical. It can only 'believe' a statement is true in the Bayesian sense, where the statement agrees with the priors.

It got more and more AI towards the end.

Also more and more use of an extremely annoying effect: text-heavy animations that reset themselves for no reason while you're trying to read them. Step 11, for instance: no value whatsoever is added by erasing and redrawing that figure.

Still, overall a very nice piece of pedagogy. If you didn't grok determinants before, this will probably help.

revised. thanks for the feedback

Great work, don't get me wrong. Looking forward to more like it!

revised for better progression *still ai assisted

Claude slopped html page.

North Korean has won, once they had nukes and ICBMs they became untouchable.

"won" is a very strong word for a country that sits economically somewhere between South Sudan and Congo, with a primary "enemy" that started out similarly and is now easily 20 times richer.

Self-sufficiency and exclusion from global trade can be very expensive for a nation long-term (a cautionary tale, since those ideals are a bit of a siren call nowadays to many Americans, after getting quite wealthy by doing the exact opposite).

The leadership doesn't particularly care, they get to live quite plush lives in their little hermit kingdom and only care about the general population in so far as they need to be comfortable enough they don't risk rebelling. Winning for the Kim family is remaining in power and they've secured their position against outside aggression quite successfully.

tbf, they already had artillery pointed at 10 million people, enough to commit an atrocity. The nukes were just the frosting on the cake.

Nuclear weapons and ICMBs that can deliver them to the US makes the threat more meaningful too. There was always the chance that a Trump-like president would decide a few days of shells raining down in Seoul while we hunted NK's artillery positions would be worth getting rid of NK. Road mobile ICBMs that can deliver a nuke to the US mainland removes that option unless they're REALLY REALLY strong believers in the 44 GBIs sitting in Alaska. (Ignoring their shoddy track record and the fact we only have 44 and usually shoot 2-4 at each missile)

They're just using astronomical year numbering.

It's being extended breathlessly into an moral issue. User asked for gory images, got gory images. Will someone please think of the non-existent women who could be hurt by this?

I don't think you understand the concern. Or at least nothing you've communicated suggests you understand it.

ChatGPT should never produce images like this. Full stop. Prompted or not, it should refuse. Now we know it's possible to walk around the gate and get it to comply. Are there other, genuinely harmful images that it should never produce? Deepfake revenge porn? Images of specific people being brutalized? I'd argue those absolutely can be harmful to someone. Well now there's evidence the "never produce this" wall can be overcome. It's only a matter of time before genuinely harmful imagery is generated.

It may be harmful to someone if shared and sent with malicious intent, but more damage has been done with pens, keyboard and words. Start banning pens that let people write hurtful things next. Ban Photoshop after because someone can get hurt with a manipulated image.

If you think these tools are remotely comparable, you haven't been paying attention.

> ChatGPT should never produce images like this. Full stop. Prompted or not, it should refuse.

Why not?

Because the company has said they won't. I'm not making a value judgement about what images should exist here, I'm making a "the company said it shouldn't be capable of producing that output, then it does" argument. Thats a bug.

Anthropic is just the whipping boy. It keeps everyone else in line.