n1231231231234

> with all the google bits removed

well, except for the fact that it's still a chromium browser and google really sets the general agenda for all chromium browsers.

I think you are confusing several matters.

If I understand your comment right, you are saying that the opiod crisis shows that people do choose drugs if they can and if there was univ. healthcare, then the system would go down under the costs.

The problem with this, as I see it: A good chunk of people addicted in this opiod crisis didn't choose to get addicted. They were all too readily prescribed hard painkillers for ailments that did by no means require such a treatment (e.g. backpain of various degrees). This is fentanyl as a gateway drug, so to speak. Those people would not have been addicts otherwise. But they got hooked on the medication and when their prescriptions comes to an end, then they would seek a replacement.

That is why doctors and pharmaceutical companies are getting sued - and are losing.

Further: If psychedelic drugs are indeed this helpful with issues like smoking and depression, like recent research suggests, then controlled administration would surely be a great relief to an overwhelmed healthcare system: saving e.g. on expensive anti-depression drugs or on cancer treatments, where the cancer was caused by smoking.

This is really cool. I am working in a related area and I think most of us have assumed that on average, the information rate is 'about the same' for the languages across the world. So it's exciting to see that their results confirm this assumption.

Two qualifying remarks.

1) The 'about the same' is important. Even in their data, there is still quite some variance. They found an average of 39bits, with a stdev of 5. That means that about 1/3 of the data falls outside of the range of 34-44bits.

2) Which brings me to the the uniform information density (UID) hypothesis. According to the UID, the language signal should be pretty smooth wrt how information is spread across it. For many years, the UID was thought to be pretty absolute: Even across a unit like a sentence, it was thought that information will spread pretty evenly. Now, there is an increasing amount of research that shows that esp. in spontaneous spoken language, there is a lot more variance within in the signal, with considerable peaks and troughs spread across longer sequences.

for me, it's stuck on the security check - or is this the joke?

1) is different in quality. possibly 2), too, but I don't know enought about it.

in CH, search engines are state-censored for political reasons - mainly to keep in power a semi-dictatorship.

the right to be forgotten was implemented to protect individual rights. one may or may not agree with such a protection. however, the motivation was not systematic political censorship.

edit: missing word.

1) What really bothered me personally about GPT2 is that they made it look sciency by putting out a paper that looks like other scientific papers -- but then they undermine a key aspect of science: reproducability/verifiability. I struggle to believe 'science' that cannot be verified/replicated.

2) In addition to this, they stand on the shoulder of giants and profit from a long tradition of researchers and even companies making their data and tools available. but "open"AI chose to go down a different path.

3) which makes me wonder what they are trying to add to the discussion? the discussion about the dangers of AI is fully ongoing. by not releasing background info also means that openAI is not contributing to how dangerous AI can be approached. openAI might or might not have a model that is closer to some worrisome threshold. but we don't know for sure. so imv, what openAI primarily brought to the discussion are some vague fears against technological progress -- which doesn't help anyone.

The analogy breaks down, though - in Google's disfavour and in OP's favour.

OP knew that she had something valuable. But she also thought of it as a free good (libre, not gratis). As I interpret it this is because she knew that her work builds on the work of others.

At Google, they probably knew about the intellectual background of OP's innovation, too. And yet, they tried to patent it. So much about their intellectual honesty.

the new macbook air starts at €1349 (ca $1500) in Belgium and you really want the one for €1599 (ca $1800).

for the same money, you get other laptops that are really nice with a cost/return ratio that is a lot better.

sure, apple products are good products. but the premium is getting absurdly high

Sorry to hear that OP had such a bad experience. I guess as so often, it really depends on which team / division you are interacting with.

I was interviewing for Amazon a while back and my experience was mostly positive.

I had applied myself and they got in touch via email a few weeks later. After a brief email exchange, I got invited for a phone interview. All very straight forward - the interviewer was really friendly and professional. At the end of the interview, he also gave me some pointers about what he thinks is important in interviews.

A week later or so, I got an invitation for on-site interviews. I think it was 5 interviews in total. The hiring manager and his team were all really nice. (Interesting site note: I did mention some interesting and for the interview relevant HN article at some point and the interviewer told me that I should not believe everything that is said on HN haha.) I think the "bad cop" role was given to the two off-site interviewers. They asked some tough questions, one of which was something along the line of "Tell me about a time when you were right about something but could not convince others/management." Of course, I had experienced such situations in the past, but I struggled to give a clear narrative. I didn't want to look like someone who doesn't care; nor like someone who doesn't get their point across, nor like a push-over. In the end, I left it at something like "I still think I was right, but for other, non-content-related reasons, management went for a different decision." They didn't seem happy about my answer. The last interview was a bit weird and I probably asked a stupid question that put the interviewer off.

I think that was my inner obstructionist. I was living in Belgium at the time and I really love BE (but didn't like my job there). The Amazon job looked better, but I didn't really feel like moving to the UK, where the job was located. Also, the team indicated that they are doing more than 9-5. Here, too, my inner obstructionist was telling me 'meh'.

You can see where this is going: I didn't get the offer. Still, I thought the process was pretty decent and fair in my case. Of course, this is also just a personal experience, but I thought I'd share a nicer one.