NhanH

This is just the standard precision/ recall tradeoff with recall being prioritised at the extreme (which is usually the wrong way to go for legal field).

A standard situation of 1% positive rate and even if your diagnosis method having 90% accuracy (for both sensitivity and specificity), more than 90% of the positive detection would be false positive.

Here is the official official story: https://www.nasa.gov/history/sfa-message-everyone-plays-role...

Though I don't think I will be able to cite an official document stating Al Chop is a Snoopy fan :-), so there's that.

The guy who created the award was a fan of Snoopy, and that's about it

Patients are assigned the time for their visits. The time itself is randomized

You are claiming that the median age in China is 52 or did I read this wrong? That would be beyond fake news level of statement (for my reading of the meaning)

The current median age of China is about 40, which is not great for their context, but a world apart from 52.

It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines.

This sentence has way too many assumptions doing the heavy lifting.

“Pure logic machines” is not a thing because literally, there are things that are uncomputable (both in the sense of Turing machine’s uncomputability, and in the sense that some functions are out of scope for a finite being to compute, think of Busy Beaver)

To put it the other way, your assumption is that machines (as we commonly uses the term, rather than scifi Terminator”) are more energy efficient than human in understanding the universe. We do not have any evidence nor priori for that assumption.

Lifetime is always product or company lifetime

Yes

That’s just Black Friday.

The celebration now mainly focuses on “unification”, with some slight flavor of “independence/ liberation of the South”. The US is not even mentioned. So the idea is that we celebrate the finality of having a unified and independent country after a very long period of not being so.

The message is very deliberate and has been gradually more focused on the “unification” aspect since at least 2014-2015.

I'm a software developer by training with an interest in genetics. I currently run a startup working on multiplex gene editing technology.

This is the author’s own description of his expertise.

I have to look it up since I am not able to validate (by myself) the very strong claim he made in the beginning paragraph. I am comfortable not reading the rest. The claim is:

Our knowledge has advanced to the point where, if we had a safe and reliable means of modifying genes in embryos, we could literally create superbabies. Children that would live multiple decades longer than their non-engineered peers, have the raw intellectual horsepower to do Nobel prize worthy scientific research, and very rarely suffer from depression or other mental health disorders.

That is why it is very common for vacations (of people who stays at Four Seasons) to start or end a business trips: I am already there, might as well get my family to join and try some new foods.

I meant 11-19%, did mental maths so I did not want to specify exact value.

Though my maths seems to be wrong as well!

Asia has about 4.8B population, Australia has 26M. On a per capita basis Australia has about 1x% more deaths

The strategies will change, but it is not certain to be more “intricate”, it could go both way.

It is probably more likely that adding the other physical limitation of the human body causes one strategy to be vastly more effective, and the game becomes less intricate. The reason is fairly simple: a game does not become “intricate” or “interesting” by accident. We iterated through a lot variations before we settled down on this version of chess that has the suitable intricacy for us. Adding a new factor probably needs a couple more decades/ centuries of refinement before we get to a version that has similar property to the current one.

The similar situation in Starcraft: for machines that plays the game, certain units just become the only way to play (mostly long range high damage units). Human can’t choose 100 targets at once, machines can. If you balance the game for machines, then those units would be useless for human players

This is not cynical. The situation is that a) there will be a team of very expensive lawyers and accountants working out how to best implement the plan that benefits the company (whom you can’t compete) and b) crucially, you have no control and prior on knowledge on what that plan would look like. It is not about the company trying to screw an individual over, it’s more the fact that the company will be very unconcerned if their plan is against your benefit, and you have no way to align your own benefits with the plan.

For the situation where the hijacker can actually control the plane, I'd imagine the US military now has a more proper response and will be able to scramble jet in time to shoot down the plane (they didn't have such plan for domestic situation in 2001).

And you can even turn the viewpoint around and say that he is putting his money where his mouth is.

The corporation certainly can kick you out of the stadium, but any law that can make such broadcast illegal is probably nigh unconstitutional in the US.

It seems (feels?) likely that demand for LLM is elastic, especially when it comes to specialized niche. Less power requirements just mean we run more of them in parallel for stuffs, so the power needs is gonna be growing anyway.

In 2024, 12-month inflation starts at 3.1% and is 2.7% last month (peak at 3.5% and bottom at 2.4%). You can't round that number in anyway to be "~2%". It is at least "~3%"

What's wrong with saying what you typed above verbatim? It is a fairy standard scenario and your wordings probably have been said in one-on-one millions of times. You need to follow up the sentence with "what's next", since the scenario does not have a simple solution (the manager can tone down the demand, but then output and quality goes back to where is was and we have to deal with that). But now that is more about the work itself rather than communication

Yeah but you don't use the external IP for the purpose of accessing your VPN (not via a DNS record anyway). I am also unclear on the purpose of the dynamic DNS.

Handling https in the project also adds tons of complexity in the long run though: tls/ssl library versions, cert handling. Instead of having one way to deal with all of them (at the proxy layer, or sometimes at network layer), I have to deal with individual software way of managing those

We could use technology to implement more lockdowns :-)

Then you would not be one of the most important people in that company anyway.

Just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with that, but commitment goes both way.

There used to be a Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between US and USSR. Then Donald Rumsfeld pushed for a withdrawal from the treaty, and the US did so in 2002.

Then China had an anti satellite test in 2007.

Basically what I am saying is that your idea is not new, and it is not getting anywhere either. Trying to weaponize space is just more war-mongering.

I am not American.

Rolex manufactures and sells about a million watches a year. Omega sells about half a millions. I am guessing the strategy is to add a couple of zero to the sales. If you are targeting to sell 50 millions moonswatches, the premium watch sales might not matter much

We have this idea in modern management theory that responsibility and decision making must travel up the corporate hierarchy. That execs are best positioned to make product level decisions. Or decisions of any kind. And peons at the bottom - the “individual contributors” who do all the programming must know the least about the product.

The problem is that the decision making is not about the product. The decision making is about making money. Unfortunately, for a lot of companies, making money is not equal to building good product. IC is completely unequipped to make decisions that would maximise the company top/ bottom line (this is a descriptive statement, and it is not about the individual either: modern corporation is famously broken)

Jake's writing was on hacker news 4 days ago and he was still replying to the comment at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41157974

Rest in Peace, Jake.