OneMorePerson

Maybe, I haven't looked into it too much, but among the people with a preference for classroom and textbook based learning there does seem to be a large degree of fear of failure, which influences what might otherwise be a different natural preference. Fear of failure is exacerbated by making mistakes in public, but it seems to even apply when nobody is there to observe someone making mistakes.

It's fascinating the different ways human minds work and learn. I'm the same way.

It also shows up in other areas like language learning where some people prefer classes and grammar books, and others prefer to just learn via exposure to a lot of content.

I'm not a pilot (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and I respect how hard it is to make split second high stakes decisions, however from my read the pilots had to ignore tons of basic sensors (including their own bodies). According to the crash report they were at a 35 degree upward tilt, which is super severe, and they thought they wouldn't crash because they had successfully recovered from a "low altitude warning" (which doesn't makes sense).

Point being it reads like following the sensors but ignoring what you can actually feel is happening, which is back to fundamentals.

I don't think people are saying a Cessna translates to flying an Airbus, more that NOT knowing the basics or forgetting them translates to dangerous gaps when flying the Airbus.

I think this was a pre-LLM issue, but will be exacerbated. I've worked with some people who would be reading logging data and about to do some big intervention when it was clear that the logger itself was having an issue and the results coming out were not really possible.

See but here is where I get confused. The advice you are saying is to "completely eliminate added sugar" but then you say it's due to fiber, nutrients, and hard to overeat.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but people who go to the level of "eliminate sugar completely" are usually pretty knowledgeable, so I'm trying to get into the specifics.

On a societal level the idea of reducing sugar is a positive one, but trying to eliminate sugar is the wrong idea. As far as I know eating a bowl of greek yogurt with homemade granola, raspberries, and maple syrup (or even some powdered cane sugar, which I don't use), has substantially more fiber, less sugar, and more nutrient balance (and less likely to overeat) than sitting down and eating a mango, yet under the current advice trend I'm doing it wrong by "adding sugar" to the greek yogurt, and I'm totally fine to eat the mango since the sugar was in there by default.

Given that factory farmed fruit has been having increasing amounts of sugar over time it's really a lot more about nutrients, fiber, and sugar, than it is about blanket rules.

Saying "no added sugar" is a positive high level societal rule, like "eat 3-5 servings of vegetables and fruit a day" but if you get into absolute rules among nutritionally educated people, things like "no added sugar" don't really track.

Yeah there's some kind of absolutism aspect tied into identity.

Also the funny tendency humans have to dislike the people who are most similar to them. Someone who is at least recognizing factory farming is bad and willing to even think that far is more similar to a vegetarian than the people who don't give a shit and never even think about where their food is coming from.

Obviously there's the cognitive dissonance aspect to point out, but we are all doing that to some extent.

Yeah just how it is even outside of the cloud. At some point nearly all companies eventually try to take advantage of inertia and vendor lock in, if you are willing to undertake the pain of switching it's almost always a savings.

I'm not a legal expert/lawyer but I do think a lot of this is not the company just randomly wanting to do it, but lawyer driven development. No company wants to introduce more friction for no reason, unless somehow there's precedent or risk involved in not doing it. Curious to know what legal precedents or laws have changed recently.

The only possible non legally driven reason I can think of would be if they think the tradeoff of extra friction (and lost customers) is more than offset by fraud protection efforts. This seems unlikely cause I don't see how that math could have changed in the last few years.

I like it! One complaint is that if you are going fast it starts to display a "Quick!" (or something like that) message on top of the middle of the screen. This makes me want to continue going quickly, but the message is blocking me from properly seeing the orbit, so I end up trying to keep the streak going and most often launch and miss cause I can't see. Maybe display it off to the side in empty space?

There's hundreds of countries in the world. I said "relatively rare" and I said explicitly US is not the only one with worthwhile nature. Where did I give the impression I thought it was uniquely rare?

I'm 90% sure this is satire, but given how things are and how fashionable it is to hate on America/Americans I'm not sure. I guess that says something ha

How is that relevant to this conversation?

No matter how beautiful architecture is it's still not natural beauty.

I do agree there's plenty of places in other countries that have natural beauty, but the US has a combination of very large natural spaces, kept in a mostly natural state (not over developed), and does a decent job maintaining it. This is relatively rare (although the US is not the only one).

The US Forest Service has nothing to do with the amount of ads and billboards in US cities.

Honest question, which modern democracies (there's been a few different forms) besides the UK are older than the US?

The word younger is implying to me that US would be considered the youngest in a list of current democracies, which I wasn't aware of.

Do you have any examples? I can't think of a single regulated monopoly that innovates effectively without outside forces.

For example some countries that have regulated monopolies can allow in small amounts of foreign products to motivate their own state sponsored companies, but without that and assuming its not something relatively straightforward like a utility or an oil company, I'm not aware of any that innovate effectively.

These aren't a new type of person. It's the people who would hear something from a friend, not fact check, and just repeat it. It's the people who (if they know how to google) would search, find the first result, and trust that, or they would write biased queries to google and then trust the first niche site that would agree with their pre-formed worldview.

Using or not using a LLM is not itself a measure of how deluded someone is, for example anytime I ask a LLM a question (it can be nice for long form questions that don't translate well to a google search, I require that it provides source links for every claim. This tends to make it reply more accurately but also lets me read the page source for their top level explanation.

I don't think it happens quite that distinctly in the world we live in now (technology, etc.). It's not like a big tech company can go attain the same direct power as the East India company way back in the day. It's much more likely that companies continue to gain lobbying and "soft" power that directs the military into doing things. Large corps do have more money than many countries, so if a huge company wants to setup manufacturing or gain benefits in a smaller country they do have outsized power, but its rare that a huge company has more power than their own country from what I know (potentially oil companies are the exception which is why national oil companies seem to have so much weight in so many countries). For example sure the big tech companies are very powerful, but the US military budget per year is still nearly the same size as the largest tech companies market cap. Whereas you are right that a US big tech company has more revenue than say...Guatemala, or Morocco.

I guess I am splitting hairs but "spare capacity" heavily implies it's a non physical resource or it's able to be used in an instant. Almost like how if you had a global based missile system like a GBI (or not quite global but long range like a THAAD) you could near instantly have someone "bid" to use your missiles in an emergency scenario. Building short range interceptors and selling them or renting them is closer to the model of AWS itself, building a knowledge base hosting your own platform (Amazon.com retail) and then selling that knowledge to others. In this case building anti missile systems to protect data centers and then selling a packaged model to other companies. But it's not "spare capacity", it's selling expertise and helping to fund your own R&D.

I dunno about defense as a service since those are pretty short range systems you mentioned (how would someone go "buy" excess capacity), but datacenters already cluster around common resources (water, etc.) so group buying some equipment to put in a ring around the datacenter area seems like it would be what they do.

Yeah the use consumer grade rocket components made SpaceX become viable compared to bloated rocket companies. Short range anti missile systems are not large ordinance, they rely a lot on technology for tracking targeting, and they are not a "weapon" (as in they prevent damage not cause it except inadvertently) so it actually seems like something pretty feasible for a tech company. Build it with consumer grade hardware and you could deploy a ton of them.

Do you have a source for that last part? As far as I heard the Taliban and Pakistan are fighting which is the opposite of what you are saying.

I wonder sometimes if this is actually about the job as people say, or if it has something to do with that's convenient to ask. Your job is arguably one of the most public facing things about you, and is also somewhat impersonal. I've been other countries where they launch straight into "how many kids do you have?" (or plan to have), "how much money do you make", "what neighborhood do you live in" and I kinda missed just being asked about my job.

Oh yeah no doubt. That kind of thing is just human nature to some extent. Anywhere where getting something done gets you promoted or paid more (which again is a necessary side effect of rewarding progress) tends to have cases where people are producing bullshit or inflating their real contribution.

Yeah I wonder about that sometimes, the maximal balance between efficiency and inefficiency. Some things are clearly a waste (like advertising as you mentioned) but then other stuff is part of innovation, and it's sometimes a bit fuzzy between the two. On paper it's wasteful that Mazda, Toyota, Ford, etc. all had to independently develop a sedan, yet it would be far worse if we only had one car company to choose from (far worse because of how monopolies inevitably stagnate).

Most places/countries/companies that value hard work tend to produce a lot, but I also wonder what goes on when it tilts too far and hard work becomes what you are measuring for. In the US for example there's still the vague idea that working hard is a virtue of sorts, but there's also an equivalent desire to produce something, be efficient, etc.

I haven't directly experienced Japanese work culture (just language and traveling) but it seems like they value hard work above all else, which makes innovation almost a threat. You might take away someone's opportunity to show "hard work" if you removed a difficult task.

I appreciate that rationale, I also see the importance of those two principles and I think there's a lot of value there.

I suppose I see "any idiot" as a more general phrase, like "idiot proof", not directly meaning that anyone who uses a LLM is an idiot. However I can also see how it would be seen as disparaging.

Also, while there's a lot of examples of people entrenching into a certain behavior or status and causing problems, I also think society is a bit harsh on people who struggle with change. For people who are less predisposed to be ok with change feels like a lot of the time the response is "just deal with it and don't be selfish, this new XYZ is better for society overall".

Society is pretty much made up of personal emotions on some level. I don't think we should go around attacking people, but very few things can be considered truly objective in the world of societal analysis.

This is technically true in a lot of ways, but also intellectual and not identifying with what the comment was expressing. It's legitimately very frustrating to have something you enjoy democratized and feel like things are changing.

It would be like if you put in all this time to get fit and skilled on mountain bikes and there was a whole community of people, quiet nature, yada yada, and then suddenly they just changed the rules and anyone with a dirt bike could go on the same trails.

It's double damage for anyone who isn't close to retirement and built their career and invested time (i.e. opportunity cost) into something that might become a lot less valuable and then they are fearful for future economic issues.

I enjoy using LLMs and have stopped writing code, but I also don't pretend that change isn't painful.

After watching the movie "dark waters" about the whole Teflon scandal, seems like it should be the highest up person (or people) who had knowledge of the incident (obviously must be proven). An individual engineer knowing a car has a dangerous edge case isn't enough to get them in trouble in my view, especially if the company has claimed they are working on fixing it. Also legitimate mistakes are just mistakes, companies won't get it right every single time.

However there's cases where its completely proven that someone high up knew there was a systemic safety issue (they had a broad view and could see all the different areas of what was going on), they knew exactly what was causing it, and they do nothing because they want to keep the profit going. The fact those people don't go to jail just tells me that corporations have way too much leeway.

Your case sounds complicated so I'm not sure, but two things to note:

1. US is one of only a few countries where children emigrating with parents don't officially declare intent to immigrate, they do it automatically with their parents. This means that your grandfather (whether he was aware or not) was still German, since German law says you only give it up if you "take action to immigrate" or something like that. Likewise every child since then (your mother and you) were born as US citizens "involuntarily" (as in you didn't choose) so you also retained your citizenship.

2. In 2021 Section 5 of the StAG law was updated to say that people born to German mothers between 1949-1975 are now eligible, it was updated since male only was seen as discriminatory. So theoretically say grandfather -> mother (born to male) -> you (post 1949). Not an expert so double check this.

Im not an expert but my understanding of your case would be that you are not even needing to apply for status, you are literally German now, and just need to request a passport (check this with the resources on Reddit I mention below).

I'd recommend checking Reddit "German Citizenship by Descent" resources. There's a couple profile names you will see there really frequently who are German citizens who can help you in finding paperwork from German government resources if needed (old birth certificates, etc.) for a small fee.

You can also see public threads where people explain their case and you can see if you find one similar to yours. Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Genealogy/comments/scvkwb/german_ci...

Yes exactly. We are all wrong on occasion, but before I repeat something I perceive as important (or maybe not even important, just "factual") I tend to always want to try to verify it. Otherwise I'd say "I heard..." or something similar to caveat. Maybe it's an engineering mindset thing.

This just feels like one of those things that can be completely loopholed. There's plenty of reasons why a company might find a specific software not profitable but also not want to open source it, so under this rule they will just host it on the most basic server possible (only concurrently supports like 50 users) and never update it again. Effectively still dead.

I don't think it's ambiguous, but I have been wondering how much LLMs model human behavior that we just don't recognize due to the subset of people on this site. I recently saw a comment online that "Mandarin isn't anyone's first language, people in China's first language is a dialect". It just struck me at that moment that people also hallucinate information confidently all the time.