andriamanitra

1% false positive rate is completely unacceptable, and if you can bypass it by changing some of the words what's even the point? This is only going to catch low effort slop.

I'm guessing "race term" got automatically flagged because it can be understood as "word or expression that refers to a racial group or to race/ethnicity" i.e. an euphemism for a slur.

I think "avoid naming things after people without a deep personal connection to the thing being named" and "prefer established names used by locals" are pretty good principles to follow.

> The Koyukon people who inhabit the area around the mountain have referred to the peak as "Denali" for centuries. In 1896, a gold prospector named it "Mount McKinley" in support of then presidential candidate William McKinley, who later became the 25th president.

Even when LLMs add something it's a better idea to let the readers use LLMs to augment content. They have the best knowledge of their own background and what they're looking for.

Sharing information that is already in the corpus is simply not that valuable in a world where everyone has access to their own LLMs.

I don't see how a wealth tax that starts at $100M could possibly disproportionately (or at all) land on the middle class.

I'm sure the parasitic class will always find ways to partially dodge taxes but compared to income and capital gains taxes a strongly worded wealth tax would be much more difficult to avoid. We just need to be careful with the wording of the law to make sure lobbyists are not allowed to carve out any loopholes that can be abused by tax planners.

The cost of living would certainly rise somewhat but the point is that UBI is redistributive: the same absolute amount to everyone raises low incomes by a larger percentage than high incomes. Long term effects are hard to predict but in the short term it would mean the poor doing slightly better while the middle class is slightly worse off. The non-working (owning) class would be mostly unaffected as assets are insulated from inflation.

Another factor to consider is that putting more money in the hands of people in need of <thing> means producing <thing> becomes more profitable and thus more investment and resources are directed towards <thing>. If we assume the economy works the way the proponents of capitalism say it does, this should eventually drive the cost of living back down.

But personally I think the biggest benefit of UBI would be the reduction in number of people who are desperate enough to accept work – both legal and illegal – that is unfairly compensated, inhumane and/or immoral. The existence of that class of people is the driving force behind many societal problems. Exorbitant amounts of resources are wasted treating the symptoms of those problems instead of fixing the root cause.

This is very interesting. I'm a bit skeptical about the benchmarks / performance claims because they seem almost too good to be true but even just the extended operators alone are a nice improvement over existing regex engines.

The post mentions they also have a native library implemented in Rust without dependencies but I couldn't find a link to it. Is that available somewhere? I would love to try it out in some of my projects but I don't use .NET so the NuGET package is of no use to me.

If you need to deal with matrices Julia's built-in support for that kind of stuff is the best out of any language I've ever seen (and I've tried dozens of different languages). It's like having first-class numpy arrays without installing any third party packages, and the syntax is even more convenient than Python. The standard library is reasonably comprehensive (not quite as big as in Python or Ruby or Go, but it's usually more well-designed).

It is also an excellent language for messing about because the language and especially the REPL have tons of quality-of-life features. I often use it when I want to do something interactively (eg. inspect a data set, draw a graph, or figure out what's going on with an Unicode string, or debug some bitwise trickery).

What Julia is not great at is things where you need minimal overhead. It is performant for serious number crunching like simulations or machine learning tasks, but the runtime is quite heavy for simple scripting and command-line tools (where the JIT doesn't really get a chance to kick in).

That model breaks when you don't have perfect knowledge of whether or not you will perish. Therefore in every practical situation we are forced to assign a finite cost to risk. And generally people tend to prefer tiny increases to societal risk over compromising their personal comfort.

Would you want it to? The further the goal posts are the more progress we are making, and that's good, no? Trying to make it into a religious debate between believers and non-believers is silly. Neither side can predict the future, and, even if they could, winning the debate is not worth anything!

What is interesting is what can do with LLMs today and what we would like them to be able to do tomorrow so we can keep developing them into a good direction. Whether or not you (or I) believe it can do that thing tomorrow is thoroughly uninteresting.