strofcon

Except that the word, "recall", doesn't have two different meanings. It literally means the same thing here as it does for a recall wherein a Jeep has to have its shifter replaced / tweaked / whatever.

Just so happens that the latter can't be fixed via software, because it's not a software-based safety failure.

The former is fixable via software update, because it is a software-based safety failure.

Both, however, are safety failures. Both need to be fixed. Both situations incurred regulatory requirements to notify customers and provide a timely fix at no cost to affected customers, whether within or without the vehicle's warranty.

In short: both are recalls, and recall means the same thing in both cases: notify, fix, or face regulatory consequences.

I too enjoy putting "quotes" around a word to make it seem like it means the thing I want to pretend it means, instead of engaging honestly with the actual situation. :-)

It should when it's required by the NHTSA and comes along with mandatory reporting, notification, and deadline obligations, along with optional free on-site execution of the fix.

That's what makes it a recall. A software update is the mechanism, the recall is the "Tesla did something wrong and is being held accountable" part.

"your car has a defective part, *is unreliable*, and needs to be brought in to have that part replaced.".

Precisely! NHTSA determined that these vehicles are unreliable in this specific case, and thus need fixing. Glad we're on the same page. :-)

(I know, you want to pretend that it only ever means "physical repair" in everyone's mind, but that's a pretty big projection on your part.)

Oh, and I agree - it'll be useful for a number of reasons, but 'being generally intelligent' won't be one of them. :-)

I think you make a good point, benchmarks and metrics are indeed a better proxy for performance. Seems worth pointing out that, while "nowhere near half in [your] experience" are completely wrong, I don't take your word for it either. :-)

The trouble in my view is that the only way to know that the answers you're getting are accurate and not misleading is to study up on the answers elsewhere - which is a great habit to nurture, but is also precisely why these tools tend toward uselessness in their "general AI" bids. If I can't know how the answer was built, or how good that answer is, there's no point asking it - I'll just do my own reading and apply appropriate discernment as I go.

To be fair, hardly anyone does this today, nor did they before LLM-based chat bots... So it's a moot point, because society is largely doomed anyway. But a moot point can still be a valid one.

I also think the author makes a good point that we frequently confuse performance for competence. "It does a really good job at <X>!... or at least does a damn fine job of mimicking someone who acts like they do a really good job at <X>!"

By way of analogy, consider Elon Musk - by all appearances, he's a genius and is saving humanity - but by dint of his narcissism and largely smooth-brained approach to... well... everything... he's running all of us into an earlier planet-size grave than is necessary. His performance is fantastic, his competence is nonexistent.

Heh definitely an eyebrow-raising comment! On a second read of it though, I took it more as "because minimizing the code written is a pattern observed in the wild, AlphaCode mimics it as that's what it learned from."

I might be terribly wrong though. :-D

I was tempted to just post "because f** you, that's why" to be funny, but then it just felt like a quick path to the banhammer. :-)

Seriously though, I'm beginning to believe that this is the path of all general discussion platforms - jerks and morons infiltrate, and the rest of us fall for it.

Tl;dr - "Profitable company makes reasonable decision to stay profitable."

I don't really understand why the walled garden seems to still surprise so many people.

This is... A bizarre take. Impressive how wrong you can be in just two sentences. Kudos! :-)

Key difference - Uber didn't break the law while wiping out entire life savings volumes.

I understand that's a much broader-scoped situation than mentioned in the article (who cares about one country getting certain regs enforced), but the point stands - coinbase is a literally Ponzi scheme, and comparing it to other "eventually became legal" business models seems disingenuous.

"This is the value of cash. People can choose how much they want to trust 3rd parties and how much personal responsibility they want to take on. Some people may always choose a centralized mechanism for managing their assets, some will choose to manage their assets completely on their own, and others will decide on a case-by-case basis if they want a 3rd party involved."

Fixed that for ya.

"Just follow these 17 arcane steps and boom! Problem solved!" isn't a great flex.

That goes waayyy beyond "not wrapped up in a convenient user experience". Talking of finances is not so trivial a proposition as... Well, anything else that might have started our complicated on the internet.

Just a nit - it was about pseudonymity, not anonymity.

Still worthless tech, but in the interest of fairness. :-D

"As such, if I stand up a new email server and start sending email to Gmail addresses, I am at the whims of Google deciding what email from me gets delivered."

This is the critical point. Adoption matters, and always ends up with consolidated power. It's just how things are, and how they stay, short of the severe intervention of dramatically easy-to-use tools for "click to host your own stuff".

Wait did you actually say "all money falls into the greater fool category"?

You... Really ought to look up what greater fool theory is. And maybe money, too, while you're at it.

I mean, sure, if you'd like to ignore the entire point of inherent or intrinsic value, then... go for it? Weird flex, but sure.

And no, it's not circular - "negative sum game" is literally baked into the concept of a purely speculative unbacked "asset". More money has to go in than can possibly come out, and there's precisely zilch to show for it.

Any place that accepts crypto is simply immediately selling it for fiat, and making the customer pay more than they otherwise would in fees and headache.

Anyway, it's fun to be obtuse, I know, but you're pushing the limits here.

This.

In the event that the world falls apart, the Mac is at least usable as a weighted object, if all else fails.

Bitcoins become purely thought in such a situation, and even in far less catastrophic ones.

Sure - today, as the situation stands, I'd sell it in a heartbeat, because there is still a vast supply of greater fools. That doesn't mean it has intrinsic value, nor that it would be an ethical / moral choice. Just means that I have loose enough morals to be happy to take an idiot's money.

When suddenly it loses its popularity and/or supply of greater fools, it'll fall apart, and I'll have taken some poor sap's actual money, even if it was delayed / distanced / distributed by some thousands of layers.

Value is subjective in many cases, yes, but there is still intrinsic value in the device itself, if we have to boil it down. You missed that bit - the intrinsic part is literally the metals of which the device is made. Even failing that, it's useful as a weighted object. You can get down to the nuts and bolts of a thing with intrinsic value, such that even in the vent that society collapses and there's no coordinated economy to speak of, there is still SOMETHING for which the thing/service can be used. Cryptocurrencies literally stop existing in such an event, and become entirely worthless in even less catastrophic situations.

Money is an agreed upon tool for exchanging items/services of value - but it also a store of value, because it retains at least a semblance of stability. Cryptocurrencies are... well, not currencies, for starters, but they're also simply a proxy for "real" money (ie: fiat).

Where cryptocurrencies entirely fall apart is when the realization hits that they all fall into the greater fool category - once you run out of new marks, the scheme collapses, and all the money - note actual currency - ends up in the hands of a few early adopters and a couple extra lucky folks who timed it right. Negative sum games are not a good thing to prop up.

Anyone notice how the author goes to great lengths to 'bold' the claims in the original letter that talk about how worthless the technology is - and then fails entirely to address those points?

Letter: "Crypo rests on tech that is useless." Blogger: "I disagree, I think there are some fascinating things to be done with blockchain tech! Just... don't expect me to share them. You should DYOR."

sigh

No, the Mac is worth something in and of itself. It is a tool of productivity, entertainment, education, creation, etc. And, failing all of that, it's valuable for its parts.

A bitcoin is an ID number pointing to pretend money. It has zero intrinsic value.

But what if - and just hear me out here - there are not ways around the fundamental problems of social media platforms as they exist today?

I think we've had plenty of years to demonstrate a way to make it work without the toxicity and damage to society, yet we've not done so - even with the most scrutinized platforms in history and the world's most capable software engineers.

We are social creatures. Social media is not at all an incarnation of 'society' in which we can function.

If one woman can make a baby in 9 months, why can't 9 women do it in one?

Fortunately there are compounded racemic ketamine options in a lot of places, whether troches (lozenges) or nasal spray (that's the one I use).

I pay out of pocket fully, and it's $60/month.

Clearly YMMV, but worth looking into if the infusions are prohibitively expensive.

Standard disclaimers - don't take my advice, I'm not a doctor, be smarter than "hey strofcon said...". :-)

Ketamine's been working wonders for me, though it's only been a month. That said, the research on it has proven fascinating, and it really is helping me to fundamentally reevaluate some beliefs that, evidently, were in need of reevaluation.

Still a loooooong road I suspect, but it's the only thing that's ever helped me.

Normal meds never touched it, lifestyle changes are a nice platitude to make neurotypicals feel smugly helpful, and while societal structures definitely play a larger role than we care to admit, they're absolutely not going to change in our favor.

Anyway, something to read up on and ask your psychiatrist about. :-)

Happy to answer questions if you have any, though again - I are not doctor.

So... Erlang / OTP? Sweet.

Seems to me that banning encryption would thoroughly limit software freedoms. Ie:can't use anything secure, thus can't freely choose your toolset.

And weirdly (as tech tends to be), Spotify was terribad for me in terms of stability and playback continuity. :-D

But yea, Apple Music is not great here either. Haven't had enough time with their suggestion engine, but Spotify's is indeed pretty awful.

I'm very confused as to how you think the government is involved with this issue. Is Neil Young a government official? Or is it empirically false to claim that Joe Rogan is actively peddling false information that is directly impacting people by way of, ya know, dying?

I think this is a simple example of the people with wallets using said wallets to indicate what they will and won't tolerate.