jgust

Have you tried putting your phone in "grayscale" mode? Works wonders for turning your smartphone back into a "tool" instead of a "toy".

I've never been able to type on a touch screen as efficiently as my blackberry 9000 keyboard. RIP

I understand the point you're trying to make, but this entire thread misses the forest for the trees. Rules & regulations don't exist to create equality or fairness, it's to foster competition. We don't watch competitions for how equal and fair they are. By separating competition by gender, we have increased the opportunities to witness competitiveness. How, going forward, can we maximize that metric? That will be the future of sport.

Might it be overly generous to attribute these outcomes to recent actions by people in these instituions vs. the USD still being the world reserve currency?

You also, perhaps intentionally, described all of motorsports.

Life before death brother.

> We really don’t like solid foundations do we.

Isn't it all built (run?) on sand?

1 week: no planning, just reaction

2 weeks: minimal planning effort, not a long enough period to agitate stakeholders when you say "next sprint"

4 weeks: it's MY request and I NEED IT NOW!

> Mostly you look at things for what "they are" or "how they look" but not "how they work" or "their potential uses"

Say more. I feel I'm the exact opposite if I understand you correctly.

That sounds like an argument for banning WhatsApp in favor of transparency...

Something something 100 monkeys with a typewriter? I'm expecting some margin of error introduced into these models that produces a surreal fever dream era of AI generated content on the internet.

"Tough on white collar crime"

I'm worried less about the lettuce (which we have little control over) and more about what's sprayed on the lettuce (which we do have control over). It seems like man-made chemicals added to food have a significantly higher probability of harming humans than digging something straight out of the ground and eating it, even if it's GMO.

I have no idea how these things work, but what struck me is the "restrictive" tone in the EU ("We couldn't find an adequate study proving or disproving, therefore we assume it's dangerous until proven otherwise") vs. what I view as a "permissive" view in the US ("We couldn't find an adequate study proving or disproving, therefore we assume it's safe until proven otherwise").

When it comes to things I put in my body, I would personally prefer the EU approach.

Let's assume that GPT eliminates an entire field of experts, runs out of training data, and whoever is at the helm of that GPT program decides that it's lucrative enough to obtain more/better data. One alternative is subsidizing these experts to do this type of work and plug it directly into the model. I don't expect the nature of the work to change, more likely it's the signature on the check and the availability of the datasets.