expazl

That adressing throughput not costs. If you keep costs contant, lower prices but acchive higher throughput, the only thing you acchieve is to lose money faster than you would have done otherwise by just lowering costs straight away.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the government has to be seen doing "something". This was the something.

No, that might have been true then, but the real reason is the same that Airlines suddenly unlearned how to group people who book togehter to sit together unless they reserve booking. The security theator is expensive to run, but it's less expensive than what you make selling more expensive methods of avoiding the security theather.

Airlines don't want you to have a nice and easy travel, unless you've paid the appropriate primum. They are perfectly happing intentionally pissing off 98% of their travelers to maintain the 2% who pay extra. And when you zoom out, that also means that what you pay for the premium tickets isn't to pay for extra luxery, its to pay for the intentional annoyance of everyone else.

They didn't kill RSS - they introduced people to it.

For myself and most people i knew that knew of RSS feeds, we weren't introduced by google reader, we migrated to it because it was a great reader. Then once they had everyone onboard reader and there weren't really anyone competing becuause reader was great and universilly liked, they killed it, striking a gigantic blow to RSS in general.

It really just is not a case of google just "bringing people in then letting them go". They did the equivalent of offering free hamburgers at the corner between Burger King and McDonalds and then shutting it down after the two chains had gone bankrupt. And you might say "Sure, but people still enjoy fast food!" and that's true, but after that it's not burgers people are buying, it's burritos, because the burger market becomes a wasteland when someone does something like that.

It turned out the distribution (and to some extent, ownership) problems eclipsed every other problem in software.

I have a different perspective. I see it more as a question about runtime environment. We still have 20y old Delphi applications in production, and distribution is trivial, corporate machines have software that just installs the apps the users need based on their roles, and they autoupdate etc. My team still hates them and want to replace them with webapps, even with no distribution or ownership issues.

For us the big issue is the "it's not working for me, what could be wrong?" cases where you have to dedicate half a day or more of expert time trying to figure out which absurd corner of microsoft windows is causing issues on the particular intersection of that one application on that one entirely unique computer configuration (even after corporate management of software/policies etc), and of cause that one particular user, because what could they have done?

Web apps have the benefit that they don't run on microsoft windows, they run on chrome (even if you use edge), and chrome is a much better operating system than windows will ever dream of being. It even fulfilled java's pipedream of being cross platform (well effectively from a user perspective anyway).

You can do that in confluence.

Despite the odd angle used throughout all the western media propaganda. It was an Iraqi group not Iranian group. The constant push to frame this as "USA vs. Iran" by calling it an Iran-backed group, instead of an Iraqi group, or be specific and state that it was "Islamic Resistance in Iraq" is just befuddling. It's like if the media was covering the current crisis in Palestine/Israel, while never mentioning Israel and instead writing headlines like "USA-backed group bombs hospital in Gaza".

As for why this Iraqi group is able to attack USA, it's likely much more to do with the 13 year old failed US Invasion of Iraq than anything to do with Iran. But It feels like USA is embarrassed enough about that whole thing that they have decided to just ignore that Iraq exists and instead consider this to be an attack all along the Jordan-Iran border, which for anyone geographically interested is just as long as the border between USA and France.

Micky mouse was inspired by "a real world animal". That doesn't mean that all IP is suddenly void.

It feels like almost all the issues with self-checkout technology come from the attempts to minimise shoplifting, which don't even seem that effective at doing that. In theory, a system that let you scan products the same way checkout staff do without any weight checks or bagging area rules or other interruptions would be incredibly efficient. Especially if you could do things like scan the same product multiple times if you were buying multiple copies of it.

Our local supermarket has this. A phone app you scan things as you go, and when leaving you scan a QR code, swipe to pay, then you get a code to open the gate out and you leave. It's incredibly smooth. Also, this means you can just put your bags in your cart and bag while you shop, so you just completely skip checkout, it's a breeze.

I don't understand your point about scanning multiple times though. If I'm buying 5 of something I scan one of them, and just increase the count to five.

Thank god, finaly! I was getting so annoyed at my ice melting when cooking fish and the beeswax melting when cooking tenderloin. Why didn't anyone think of this before? /S

When you have a product you think is cool but you don't yet have a sales pitch. Wait until you figure out your sales pitch to release it. This might be a great oven, but the material just makes it seem like a really random gimmick that no one needs outside of filming TikToks about how random it is.

Human level means at the level of a human. Replace your 6 senior software engineers with 6 random humans, heck, replace them with 600 random humans. Let them lose on a problem and report back the results.

I might be glossing over a lot of subtleties, but if you ask me South park single-handedly rerouted Disneys trajectory through nothing but targeted satire.

That's like demanding that anytime a F1 driver takes a pit stop he should be fired. Obviously the pit stop itself doesn't improve the time, and he's just sitting still. Imagine if a driver was sitting still after the race started!?

Layoffs are not desirable for a company, but sometimes they are required. The fact that a CEO decides to go with layoffs when it's the right thing to do shouldn't be seen as a failure of the CEO. It's the pit stop that keeps the company from exploding if you just ignore all financial health markers and keep everyone employed until the money runs dry and you have to gut the business and sell of part to cover the bankruptcy.

Yes, the latter more difficult to do accurately, but if people were really able to evaluate themselves, they would be able to understand they’re, on average, below or above the median.

Lets suppose I ask you "How tall are you?" would you be able to answer? Good, then you are able to accurately asses your own height.

Now lets suppose I ask you "How tall are you as a percentile of this group including you and 99 people who you don't know who are". You should realize that you can't do that exactly as accurately because you don't have perfect knowledge of their heights just from knowing your own.

Now for the even more convoluted and actual Dunning-Kruger assessment. I ask you "How tall are you?" great, now at which percentile do you think your deviation from your actual height falls compared to the deviations from these other 99 peoples esstimates of their actual heights? How on earth are you supposed to answer that unless you have some sort of knowledge about how they perform? Are people a cm off? Are some people 10cm off? Are people being mm precise?

The problem with the Dunning-Kruger effect is that it effectively says "People who are on average worse at estimating their own height tend to underestimate it, while people who are on average better at estimating their own height tend to overestimate it", but if you look at the absolute ability of people to estimate their own height it's similar independent of how close people get. But the Dunning-Kruger analysis methodology is set up such that it transforms random noise into an observation of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is the problem highlighted in the OP. Part of the problem here is to have participants estimate on a percentile range instead of doing a simple absolute estimation. You can ask people "So how far off do you think you are in cm's?" And you'll see that people are fairly consistent in accessing their own ability and so the Dunning-Kruger effect goes away. The effect is a result of the methodology not of the actual people being test.

But that's a hard sell for most people because they have a bias about "dumb people" and the effect as originally stated confirms that bias, so people hold on to the conclusion even as holes in the methodology becomes apparent.

Too late to edit, but I think Adam D'Angelo staying on the board proves my speculation completely wrong.

I think if people at all levels of skill were reasonably good at measuring their own ability, we would see two curves that roughly overlap. Instead we see the graph given.

Actually, due to the construction of the test, the ability to evaluate your own absolute ability in a subject isn't sufficient for the two lines to be able to overlap.

It's a percentile axis, so you need to be able to reasonably accurately estimate the ability of everyone taking the test, and where you fall in the quartile range of those participants.

But in reality, it would be very surprising if performance and evaluation of performance were independent. We expect people to be able to accurately rate their own ability.

This seems to be attacking an irrelevant point in the analysis. The argument goes as such: Researcher carries out all the studies needed to prove the Dunning-Kruger effect, then trips and drops all the results into a vat of acid. But he's ashamed and quickly generates random numbers for the results, and somehow the data still proves the Dunning-Kruger effect. Not just that, repeating the same exercise again and again with completely random data leads to the same result, the effect is always present. So is the Dunning-kruger effect so powerful that it exists in the very fabric of the universe devoid of any human interaction, or is something amiss?

In this situation we are forced to look at the test we have that concluded from the data that the Dunning-Kruger effect exists and conclude that it's a bad test, we need something different.

You seem to be arguing "oh no, you can't look at random data, because we wouldn't expect the experiment to yield random data!". But that doesn't work as an argument for why the test should still be considered good. If it's supposed to have any worth, then the test has to be able to come to one of two conclusions: The Dunning-Kruger effect exists or the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't exist. And if the test is set up such that for positive experimental results, or just random noise, it comes out in the positive, and only in extremely unlikely and a narrow band of the possible outcome space come out negative, then the test is bad.

If we want to try to rephrase everything a bit to make the issue much clearer. Lets set up a coin-toss competition between ChatGPT and a group of 100 people. Each participant goes 1:1 against ChatGPT where both parties toss a coin and whoever has the most heads wins, on draws toss again, in case a pair goes into an infinite loop that doesn't end before our allotted trial time, they get removed from the study. A human assistant tosses on the behalf of ChatGPT on account of it not having arms yet.

Now we ask each person how they would rate their ability vs. ChatGPT in a coin-toss, everyone answers 50/50, for obvious reasons.

So we run the experiment, the line for "ability plotted against ability" is a straight diagonal line. The line for estimated ability vs actual ability is a a straight flat line at 50%.

Eureka! To the presses! we have just proven the Dunning-Coin-Kruger effect! People who are worse at throwing coins tend to over estimate their ability, and people who are better at throwing coins underestimate their ability! What a marvelous bit of psychological insight, it really tells us something about how the human mind works, and has broader insights about our society! But naturally we always expected this outcome, people who are bad a tossing coins are dumb and of cause they are overconfident, not like people who are good at tossing coins who have a remarkable Intellect about themselves and are therefore humble in their self estimation... and so on and on about preconceived biases that have nothing to do with the actual test we performed.

Everyone who sat in the meeting with the board ousting Sam knows enough of the reason as to why he was ousted. They all voted Yes, and even if some of them regret it now that they see it didn't unfold as just a simple "we now have control"-play, they all had reasons to vote him out. But those reasons obliviously aren't grounded in anything they can reveal to the public.

It looks like 90%+ of the company is ready to join him and other senior members at Microsoft under a new banner and with the backing of Microsoft which is the major cost center for OpenAI, and also own 49% of OpenAI. It's got to be a furiously grand couple of 10x'ers for the remaining 10% that stay behind to compete with Sam, so while some other CEO might sit in the same seat as him now and might have similar competences, I'd say that in light of this history he is critical, at least right now. We might ask if Steve Jobs was critical at Apple, it sure did seem so when he came back in 1997. History suggest so, but people will of cause have differing opinions on the matter.

So from all the news it's difficult to figure out what might have been the boards Idea. But I have a fealing it went something like this:

Adam D'Angelo has a solution for selling chatbots using ChatGPT(Poe). He asks Sam "is OpenAI working on anything similar" and Sam goes, sure, but it's not far along, talk to A about it. A says "yea, we never got far with it.". Time passes and OpenAI releases a product that blows Adams offering completely out of the water, and he goes "WTF A said we never got far!?!?" Sam goes Oh, this is a solution by B.

So now Adams pissed, and the board probably agrees that Sam lied by omission and that he willfully fucked Adam over, so they have a vote, and kick him out thinking that the public is going to go "Oh yea, they did the right thing kicking him out for lying"... except they can't say he lied, because he didn't. So they send the cryptic reason of him “not being consistently candid in his communications”. Of cause they didn't clear any of this with anyone and just thought they had the seat of power in the situation because "they are the board". Now they imploded the company in an attempt to give Adam some justice for Sam blowing up his project. But nothing can officially be said, because it all comes of as unprofessional and just straight up stupid. They can't punish Sam for persuing a bot store, because that's good for OpenAI and Adams on the board representing OpenAI, not his other projects. They can't go out and argue that Sam lies because he didn't. They can't argue that it's a firerable offense to have two teams working on the same thing. And they can't just stick to their decision because that has 90% of the company jumping ship and continuing under a new Microsoft Banner.

All of this is complete speculation trying to align the tidbits of facts that have been presented here and there, but all I can say is I can't wait for the Movie to come out.

Another great point in this discussion is the page on why fossil deliberately does not have rebase: "Rebase considered Harmful" https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md

Believe it or not, but if you manage to damage your engine by driving through deep water that snot under warrenty either, unless you own an ambitious vehicle. There is this incredibly odd and incridibly forced mentality in drivers of "Well I was on the road and I need to get from point A to point B, so nomatter the conditions I can't be faulted for driving through them". But if you drive through deep water and damage your car that's very much your own wrong doing and your own bill at the end of the day. And if it happens that there is no way from point A to point B that doesn't have the potential of damaging your car then you need to just not go at all.

My laptop can't handle being submerged in a puddle why would a car? It's batteries being submerged, the doors aren't waterproof. It's not a amphebian vehicle. If the puddles are deep enough to leak water into your car and your car has batteries you shouldn't drive through it. If you do and the batteries die, then you can't expect your warranty to cover you. Nothing prevents you from taking your laptop in the shower, but if you drop it and it dies, then you gotta pay for it. Seems reasonable enough.

I mean the owner pretty much admits to driving through puddles, the question is how deep they were, but my bet would be that they did in fact submerge the bottom of the car. Most electric car owners would be aware enough about what type of car they have and what the limitations are to not do such a thing.

Then relevant quote is:

I’ve been driving for 30 years and this is my most premium car to date and this is what it does when Edinburgh’s roads get puddles or a little wet!”

So he's been driving ICE-cars through puddles for 30 years, and because his Tesla cost more than his previous cars he expects it should be able to do at least as much. But obviously there are going to be fundamental differences between an electric car and a gasoline car when it comes to semi amphibious endeavors, and a Tesla Model S doesn't store the batteries in the ceiling.

Ok so a lot of folks have fine motor control problems.

The scrollbar is not there so you can use it to change your scroll position. It's there solely for the purpose of visualizing what your current scroll position is. Every device and every application should have a way to scroll that does not rely on the assumption that people will hunt out some narrow area of their screen and hold it while dragging to scroll. That's just a horrible interaction that never should have been considered in any setting. At least that's my opinion.

I get that the luxury watch crowd will look at this as a failure because they count the time a watch works not in years but generations. But the Apple watch isn't that type of watch, it's a wrist computer. And from my perspective having gotten 8 years of support on a smartwatch that was still one of the early generations for the device type itself is pretty decent. How long would you expect them to keep supporting this?

Often with natural selection people will presuppose that different traits must have purposes or necessary advantages.

This is very true and even experts with good communication skills fall pray of perpetuating this misconception.

It's because of all the synergies that emerge in nature, it gets so tempting and to explain these as if they happened through intention. "This butterfly has a pattern that looks like the pattern of trees that grow in it's habitat so it will blend in and avoid prey" sounds so much more like a good argument than "The random mutations in the patterns of these butterflies over time that made them stand out more probably made them easier pray, so survivors would be those that were best at hiding so over time with that selective pressure we are now seeing butterflies that blend in well with the trees, even though they where never at any point able to look at a tree and go 'I want to look like that'".

By "people" you mean humans? You're a human, at least I suppose you are, my apologies if you're a ChatGPT bot. But assuming you are human, why did you people think killing all sparrows would save the grain?

Seems arbitrary to equate all Chinese and not just equate all humans. There is no evidence to suggest stupidity is geographically constrained by concepts of nationality.

Remember kids, breakfast is the most important meal of the day (TM)! So make sure you start it huge dose of sugar dressed up in funny colors! This will all but guarantee you'll have a blood glucose crash in the early hours of your day, which is a sure fire way to make your day worse, but look at that cute lion! Isn't he fun!?

Hey we can't pay workers $250/hr without raises prices to above what customers are willing to pay

There are restaurants that charge north of 800$ per person which are always fully booked half a year in advance with glowing reviews even from the worst critics hellbent on being negative.

You certainly can pay workers $250 an hour without raising prices above what customers are willing to pay depending on the product. Of cause that's not the case at those restaurants, the workers make closer to $30 bucks an hour and the money goes to the owner/investors. Imagining a restaurant with that kind of success where the owners and investors are the workers is a nice thought.

I know of one of these restaurants that always top the list of best restaurant in the world basically gave their main dish washing guy a small owning stake because the owner/chefs like him, and he's now making way more than just $250 an hour washing the dishes. But that is of cause just a case of the rich throwing leftover bones to the dogs eating scraps at the table for shits and giggles, not a case where workers owning a restaurant leads to a fair distribution of the profits for all of them.

I haven't read the study, but I think there is an extremely high chance that this is showing confirmation bias. And i feel the video they show supports this interpretation. I don't know monkeys so didn't know which ones had opposable thumbs but felt just from the hand movement that I understood when the researcher intended the monkey to follow the moving hand and when the researcher didn't, moving the hand more significantly when wanting the money to focus on it, and damping the movement when wanting it to focus on the still hand.

If they didn't already do this, they should train some people to perform the trick that doesn't know the difference between the monkeys and don't know what the expected outcome is based on their current hypothesis.