angrysaki

The bigger difference is that the net utility for LLMs could turn out to be massively negative

>I'd rather trust the people directly involved, whose interests are mostly clear and known.

That seems like a wild statement to me. Just so I understand what you're saying. Are you saying you would trust Meta's statements on if their algorithms are harmful to youth/society over independent researchers because those researchers might have some hidden bias?

I don't have an answer, but I don't think the framing should be about what they deserve or not. It should be around how much money an individual can have/control before it becomes detrimental to society.

It's almost like the people who spend their time thinking and researching the positives and negatives of a particular company/service come to different conclusions than the people who make money off the company or are directly marketed it.

>but also created an immense amount of value in society

I would say value is subjective. For example, some people might consider a successful game as having created value. Others might view it as too addictive and see the negative value on society as a whole.

It could be very true that in the long arc of history, most of the "value" these companies have created is seen as a net negative. Take smartphones for example. They have created "value" but it's very possible that in 100 years when we better can evaluate what they have done to kids who grew up with them, we well conclude that they were a net negative until their usage was rained in. The only opposing force is government regulation and that's exactly what is wrong with these types of companies (and billionaires in general). They are the ones that stop reasonable legislation from happening because they have too much power because they are so large/rich.

I would say having a good hot reload system gives you the benefit of wysiwyg with more readable code

>The compiler gives us a way to deal with this situation. It is all about being absolutely clear with intentions. Yes, Where(..) in my example would return IEnumerable<TR?> but then in subsequent code I can tell the compiler that I know for a fact that TR? is actually TR by using the null forgiving operator (!).

I guess that seems way less clear with intentions to me. If I have an array of potentially null types and I want to filter out the not nulls, I'd much rather have an operation that returns a T[] vs a T?[].

I should also note that I also have a "IEnumerable<T> WhereNotNull(IEnumerable<T>?)" function in my codebase, but I implemented it using a foreach/yield which doesn't suffer from the extra Cast<>()

>Also, the design of this this method doesn't seem to make much difference to me anyways:

``` var strs = source.SelectNotNull(it => it); ```

vs

``` var strs = source.Where(it => it != null); ```

Wouldn't the first be IEnumerable<TR> and the second be IEnumerable<TR?>

I imagine that's the main driver for creating SelectNotNull, so that you get the nonnullable type out of the Linq query

Before I put my fedora back on and leave, could you answer this question:

Do you truly think the evidence you provided would convince someone ignorant on the matter that there really was a migrant crisis that warrants the Trump administration's behavior?

So apart from some 300 million number, it's just all vibes?

Here I was expecting data about how all these illegal immigrants are causing crimes everywhere at higher rates than americans, or how many cats and dogs they've eaten but I guess there's no actual evidence of a crisis.

What are the symptoms of this "unprecedented crisis" and what makes it a crisis?

Wouldn't it be:

"when building a house, obviously a hammer is more important than the _paper_ blueprints. This isn't art class, it's construction".

(when digital notes/digital blueprints are an available option)

About 20 years ago I changed from running in basketball shoes to minimal shoes. At the time I was only running about 5K. It took me about 10 months to work up to 5k in the minimal shoes.

My general approach is to run less far but more often since you usually don't notice tendon injuries while you're exercising, but a day or two later.

“The model assumes that people directly choose partners based on their observed cognitive ability, but in reality, partner selection might happen indirectly through other related characteristics or through more complex patterns,”

Seems like a pretty wild assumption to make. Maybe they need that to simplify their model, but still...