sparky_z

In a sense, they do exactly that! But since there are only two single-digit numbers in binary, it makes for a pretty short table.

Sign of the times, I'm sad to say. The Internet is just chock full of them these days. It's gotten to the point where most of the articles on the NYTimes frontpage don't even mention him.

"If you haven't used your emergency go-bag in over a year, why do you want to use it now"?

"If you haven't used your passport in over a year, why do you want to use it now"?

"If you haven't used your grandmother's family photo album in over a year, why do you want to use it now"?

"If you haven't used your safety deposit box in over a year, why do you want to use it now"?

It's confirmed in the DVD commentary. The stunt pilot had to do it at a high enough speed that it would "outrun" the rotor wash.

I don't follow your argument. Why would those facts make PSAs effective at changing consumer shopping habits?

If my response sounded like a non-sequiter to you, well, yours sounded like one to me. The article is not about whether retailers pay attention to shopper's habits, nor does it have anything to do with high prices.

Instead, it is entirely about whether advertising campaigns encouraging people to buy and consume less (for environmental reasons, not economic protest) actually change the behavior of the people who hear them. It concludes that they do not. Do you still beg to differ?

And doorbell footage of the crash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR_Y_yf84m8

Holy shit, it looks like it was going at full highway speeds (at least) in a residential neighborhood. Doesn't look like it attempts to stop or steer away at any point. This seems like the outcome one would expect from a passed-out driver and a stuck accelerator. I'm honestly amazed that the driver survived.

What does it mean for the ghosts to be "unable" to reverse direction? Isn't that just another way of saying that the original ghost AI was programmed to never choose to do so? There are, in fact, a lot of things they never choose to do. The whole appeal of this idea is to see if you can make better decisions than the original ghost AI.

What makes an assessment "accurate"? If there was an objective answer to that question that could be used to adjudicate the rule, then the process wouldn't be needed in the first place.

It seems like you agree it would be bad for the government to be able to buy your house when you give an accurate assessment.

You're thinking about this wrong (as is the person you were replying to). The whole point of this system is to define "accurate assessment" as the break-even price where you could take or leave being bought out. That's how much the property is actually worth to you. Not some estimate of the aggregate market price. By definition, it's value to you is greater than or equal to the market price because if it's lower, why haven't you sold already? In other words, the idea is not to tax market price, but "market price + consumer surplus".

Note that because everyone's valuation would go up, this should be paired with a reduction in the tax rate.

Are they not going to tell us which company's self-driving tech was installed on the bus? That seems like very relevant info.

There are some fun ideas here, but also some rough edges. Using today's puzzle (steak->boring, which I have not solved yet) as an example:

-It's not clear to me whether the game is intended to accept any valid intermediate move or to only accept moves that lead to the correct solution. For a while, I though it only accepted correct moves, because it would not accept "steak->house" or "stake->holder" as valid moves, when I think those should clearly be valid "compound" actions (if I understand the rules correctly).

-On the other hand, I now realize that it wouldn't make sense to have an "undo" button if it were impossible to input valid but wrong moves. So maybe omitting steakhouse and stakeholder was an oversight? But now I've spend a while in a "dead end" when I thought the game was telling me I was on the right track.

-At this point, I've spend more time trying to figure this meta question about the rules than I have spent trying to solve the actual puzzle. It would help if the instructions or the game feedback made it clear whether "acceptance" = "correctness" or mere "validity".

-Also, I tried to start off with steak->stake as my homophone move, but it only accepts it as an anagram move. Obviously it's both, but there's no way for me to pick which one I want to use (and therefore free up the move I want to reserve for later).

Here's another hypothetical. Imagine you just became one of the world's most famous people overnight. The entire media apparatus, and a team of wikipedia editors, were racing to fill in every one of your biographical details, interview everybody who's ever known you, and put it all on the Internet for everyone to read. Are you sure you want anybody to be able to call your bank, answer the security questions you selected a decade ago, and wire all all your money to a bank account in the Caiman Islands?

I would not be surprised if the bank had gotten 50 such phone calls over the preceding two months. The fact that one of them happened to actually be Pope Leo is just the punchline. I'm sure there actually is a way to accomplish this without him coming to the US, but it should 't be accessible to a voice on the phone.

Not to defend the FBI here, but I don't see anywhere where they described it as a leak. In fact, they're officially denying that any such investigation is taking place. It's kind of silly to jump from the article describing as a "leak investigation" to "Aha! The FBI admits it! Hoist by their own petard!"

Not that surprising if the thing that failed was the thing that notices whether or not you put something in the trunk in the first place. Unless it does that routine at the end of every ride, regardless of whether it thinks something is in the trunk or not, then it's not a fail safe system and occasional mishaps like this should be expected at scale.

Scenario: A company's costs increased because of both the tarriff and some other factors (perhaps a supplier increased their prices, and the staff unionized and negotiated a salary increase, all around the same time). They probably would have eaten the cost if it was just the tarriff (who can say?), but because the total increase from all factors. was too much, they decided three months later to increase their prices to partially offset the combined loss of revenue. They then discover that sales did not drop from the increased price, so they decide to leave the prices where they are, even after the tarriffs end.

How much of the cost increase is 'because' of the tarriff? Which of their customers should they be forced to refund and how much?

Before clicking on this link, I hopped over to the Wikipedia page and read the intro section to get some quick context. Turns out that was unnecessary because this "article" is literally just the Wikipedia intro, almost sentence for sentence, with some minor rephrasing here and there. It's pretty blatant. Wikipedia is mentioned in the photo credits, but there's no attribution for the text, which I think is a violation of the Creative Commons license and counts as plagiarism?

Pictures were interesting, though.

The Bronx isn't "anywhere else", it's a region of New York City (one of the five boroughs), just like Manhattan is.

You're missing the point. I only use an Android because it lets me install whatever software I want. If that's no longer an option, then I'll pick based on other criteria, and then the iPhone beats the Android phone every time.

If only we had just slightly increased the length of each day so that the year divided perfectly into 365 days. Then it would be an even better analogy.

I remember many years ago (maybe around 2014?) reading about a smallish European country that implemented this sort of thing really well. There was nothing but glowing praise for it at the time. I want to say maybe it was Latvia?

Does anyone remember what I'm talking about? I'm wondering if there been any long-term takeaways for how well it ended up working.

I suspect you're reading too much into that phrase. It seems more likely to me that the reporter here contacted one or more of the case report authors directly to ask for a copy of what instructions they received from the journal at the time. (This would be good journalistic practice, rather than just take the journal's word for it, when they might have an incentive to lie.) But they obviously couldn't explicitly confirm that every single author received similar instructions, so they used the “at times” phrase to cover their ass.

If they had direct evidence that some author's instructions failed to ask for the case study to be fictionalized, I think they would have specifically said that. It's more definitive, and catches the journal in a lie.

I'm pretty sure what happened here is that:

1) The journal always asked for and thought they received fictionalized case studies.

2) It never occurred to them that they were presenting the case studies in a way that could be misinterpreted. (This is indefensible negligence, but I also understand how it could have happened "innocently".)

3) Once the issue came to light, they issues blanket corrections to every case study study to describe them as fiction because they asked for fiction and edited them all as fiction. (I.e., Didn't do any fact checking or independent confirmation, beyond medical broad strokes.)

4) At least one author didn't read the instructions carefully enough and sent in a real case study, which as the article says, wasn't caught by the editors during the review process. (And really, how would they catch it? If they thought they asked for fiction, they wouldn't be fact checking it.)

I actually think the disclaimer may be appropriate, even on the article that was written as a true story, if it wasn't reviewed as one.

Why would adding a new supplier to the market cause the price of power to go up?

Sure, if you emphasize selectively you can make it sound like it says that. Here are some other quotes from the article that clearly refute your interpretation:

The journal decided when it first started publishing the article type “that the cases should be fictional to protect patient confidentiality,”

While the instructions for authors for Paediatrics & Child Health has at times indicated the case reports are fictional, that disclosure has never appeared on the journal articles themselves.

“The editor acknowledged that the editorial team is at fault for overlooking the fact that our case was real during the review process,”

It's pretty clear that the journal always thought of these as fictional vignettes, and either didn't realize or didn't care that that had not made that sufficiently clear to the readers. The New Yorker article clued them into the fact that it was a problem, so they added the correction to all of their case studies to clarify that they were intended to be fictional. In (at least) one case, the author also didn't realize they should be fictional, and submitted a real case study which has now been incorrectly corrected.

It literally wrote a blog post [supposedly on its own initiative] trying to gin up outrage at open source maintainer after he denied the LLM's pull request.

Here's the original write-up of the incident:

https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...

He was only slandered once, by the LLM Agent. The Ars Technica article had presented paraphrases that it falsely attributed as direct quotes, and was therefore factually incorrect reporting. But it was not defamatory by any reasonable standard. Slander isn't just a synonym of "lie".

But why would they reason through it in that way? You haven't asked them to listen carefully and find the secret reason you're a dumb-ass in order to prove how smart they are. If they default to that mode on every query, that would just make them insufferable conversational partners, which is not the training goal.

Let me put it this way. If you were to prefix the prompts they used with "This is an IQ test: ", I wouldn't be surprised if most of the the models did much better. That would give them the context that the humans reading this article already have.

By the same reasoning, why on earth would a person sincerely ask you that question unless the car that they want to wash is either already at the car wash, or that someone is bringing it to them there for some reason?

If it's as unambiguous as you say, then the natural human response to that question isn't "you should drive there". It's "why are you fucking with me?" Or maybe "have you recently suffered a head injury?"

If you trust that the questioner isn't stupid and is interacting with you honestly, you'd probably just assume that they were asking about an unusual situation where the answer isn't obvious. It's implicitly baked into the premise of the question.

It all just went away, starting with the husbands.

I honestly can't tell whether I'm supposed to interpret this as "The dads lost interest in Facebook before anyone else", or "Everybody got divorced."

Correct. Of course, that wasn't the case in 1750 or 1900. It wouldn't have been possible then.

Hence why prior technological changes that increased productivity didn't result in living lives of extended leisure, despite some predictions to that effect. Instead people kept working to raise the overall standard of living to what could be achieved when using the new tools to their fullest extent. Doing more, not doing the same with less effort. As you say, we're not animals. We can strive for better.

Close, but it's "Butlerian". Easy to remember if you know it's named after Samuel Butler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erewhon

Possibly dumb question from someone who's not Tesla-savvy: why would you want the door handle to retract the window slightly while opening the door?