dcole2929

Now, if we could get the anti-cheat companies on board all would be right in the universe and I could stop pretending that Win10 doesn't drive me insane. Seriously, it's ridiculous that you can play an entire game in Linux with no issue but the second you load into multiplayer for some titles you risk getting your entire account banned.

I've seen a lot of stuff recently about how LangChain and other frameworks for AI/LLM are terrible and we shouldn't use them and I can't help but think that people are missing the point. If you need strong customization or flexibility frameworks of any kind are almost always the wrong choice, whether you're building a website or an AI agent. That's kind of the whole point of a framework. Opinionated workflows that enable a specific kind of application. Ideally the goal is to cover 80% of the cases and provide escape hatches to handle the other 20% until you can successfully cover those too.

As someone new to the space I have zero opinions of whether LangChain is better than writing it all yourself, but I can certainly say that, I at least, appreciate having a proscribed way of doing things, and I'm okay with the idea that I may get to a place where it no longer serves my needs. It's also worth noting that the benefit of LangChain is the ability to "chain" together these various AI links. Is there a better easier way to do that? Probably, but LangChain removes that overhead.

No buying a house with a personal mortgage requires you to have that house as your primary residence only for 1 year. That's pretty much the core behind the concept of house hacking. Buy, live there for 1 year, move and rent it out, repeat.

I have no real problems being people wanting to work remotely now and forever but I do think this is going to require a new legal framework to support it.

For better or worse there are very real tax issues associated with employees working in states and countries different than what their employer and government believes. A lot of these folks are knowingly or unknowingly dodging taxes in a way that is going to have severe consequences for them and company.

Establishing a tax base in a new city or state can put a company on the hook for thousand if not millions of dollars worth of additional taxes. And for the worker if you’re company isn’t withholding the right amount of state federal and local taxes you can find yourself with a huge tax bill at the end of the year.

Yes obviously, that's a problem. But again it's one of policy. There are lots of hard problems. Generally, avoiding hard problems isn't a great solution. Maybe for some things but when the counter is the end of democracy then that's not really an option.

Anyone that set's out to solve this should go in with a really specific definition (something like verifiable false based on expert consensus), make it enforceable with stiff penalties, and appealable to the courts. It's not perfect, it requires constant monitoring and updating, and lot's of work to make sure it's not like every other regulatory body, and get's subverted or otherwise undermined by political activity. But none of that is impossible. Possibly improbable given current conditions, but regardless something we should be having conversations about.

A ministry of truth with a well defined scope isn't any more unreasonable than a ministry of food cleanliness (FDA).

The same way we regulate what technical exports a company can make when it affects our national security, it is completely reasonable to do the same with the telecommunication companies that can affect equally large impacts on our internal security.

I'm not really sure why this is taking on a political slant from commenters here aside from the fact that Obama as a politician is a polarizing figure. The content of what he said is completely accurate and just about any credible researcher in the field will tell you so. Misinformation and especially Disinformation is a very large problems that will have to be addressed in some way if we're to have an actual functioning democracy.

They certainly aren't the only issues we face, but calling for platforms to take greater accountability isn't and shouldn't somehow be viewed as political. It doesn't matter whether you're for red, blue, putin, Snoop or the Pope. If the places people go to consume information are allowed to become inundated with blatantly false information, that's a bad thing.

There is absolutely an argument that Twitter, FB, etc. should never have become peoples sources for information but the reality is that this is the world we live in and for better and worse and we need to craft policy based on people's actions not what they should do.

This was an easy pivot away from being a runaway success. The founder couldn't figure out who the right customer was and ran out of cash. This is why so many companies are venture backed. It's not that people just want to give away pieces of their company because it's cool, but that extra cash prevents you from giving up while you go through the sometimes long process of finding product market fit.

Like honestly, this product could still reach that type of success. No idea if this guy still has the code base around, or is chilling in thread, but hit me up if so lol, I'll happily buy it off you. Or at least point you towards how to make this make money

The news, court rooms, congress floor, board rooms, hiring committees, college admissions, and yes on social media. But let's be honest here. We have two subsequent generations whose economic outlooks have been substantially harmed by the previous generation being blamed for not being successful and it's in more or less all corners of the world that imply power.

Here's the thing though. If you hit me with your car, it doesn't matter whether it was an accident or whether you intended to. You still caused me damage and it's still not crazy for me to hold you accountable. I may have more empathy in one case than another but if you refuse to accept responsibility for the harms you caused then yeah that empathy is likely going away. And this is what the author refers to near the beginning of the article:

"Adult children frequently say the parent is gaslighting them by not acknowledging the harm they caused or are still causing, failing to respect their boundaries, and/or being unwilling to accept the adult child’s requirements for a healthy relationship".

No one is perfect. I still have a great relationship with my own parents despite their failings but not all my siblings do, and as I've told each of my parents, it's on them to work to make that relationship better. Some things my siblings may never forgive or forget and you can do with that what you will, but if you want this person in your life you have to work to make it happen.

I really hate this narrative that Nadella came in and turned things around. He's absolutely made great decisions since taking the reins but most of his early success was just riding out things that Ballmer set in motion.

Not to mention most of Ballmer's misses were more Bill said no.

I think this article misses out on what in my opinion is the biggest reason to go to college for a teen and it all has to do exploration. Simply put you don't know what you don't know and at 17-18 that can be a lot. College gives you an opportunity to explore who you are and what you care about in an environment largely free of external stress (yes I know there can be stress but it's generally a lot different than "I need to provide for my family"). A lot of people are super confident in what they think their life path is until they actually encounter the steps it takes to get there. Generally we do a pretty poor job of educating young people on what different careers actually look like and what it takes to get there. There are a million lawyer and doctor shows but it's a lot harder at 17 to know that you'd actually love to study library science, or be an economist.

At 17 I thought I wanted to be a sport journalist or shoot rockets into space. Turns out I had zero interest in the path to ESPN and am terrible at chemistry. Sure looking back I can totally see that computers made all the sense in the world but I didn't recognize that then. If I had bypassed college and just started working to get to one of those paths I saw for myself who knows where I'd be. This is not to say that college is the only place where you get this freedom to explore, but colleges, especially good ones certainly encourage you to explore other options.

I think ideally your last year of high school would be nothing but career exploration, but failing that I recommend most teenagers go to college even if they think they know what they want to do.

The story doesn't really paint any of these people in a good light. The real question in my opinion, which the article does a poor job of addressing is at what point, could Watt have dropped people from the suit without compromising their ability to later file suit. It outlines that he basically knows the 40,000 number is bunk from very close to the beginning, but it's certainly hard to imagine there were no mechanisms from which he could have cut people out. Certainly seems from here like Watt pushed on in hopes he could get the money and figure out the rest later, knowing he could throw the people who sourced the clients under the bus if anything went left.