pattrn

Is there some way of knowing a truck is set up to "roll coal"? If not, then this could just be the OP thinking poorly of someone just trying to drive carefully around a family. It would be jumping to a very pessimistic conclusion without evidence.

I've lived in the most libertarian state in the country for the majority of my life. I've never noticed any illegal dumping, and I've never heard any libertarians call anyone an anarchist (maybe once?). If anything, it's the non-libertarians that call libertarians anarchists.

On what are you basing your opinions?

Thanks! I appreciate it.

> Ah yes, of course, just because you never saw it means it never happens. That's definitely why rules exist around this specific thing happening. Because it never happens. Totally.

You seem to have missed the part where I said multiple times that a 1400 has definitely made illegal moves.

> In fact, it's so rare that in order to forefeit a game, you have to do it twice. But it never happens, ever, because pattrn has never seen it. Case closed everyone.

I actually said the exact opposite. You're responding to an argument I didn't make.

> I made no judgement on what ChatGPT can and can't do. I pointed out an extreme. Which the commenter agreed was an extreme. The rest of your comment is completely irrelevant but congrats on getting tilted over something that literally doesn't concern you. Next time, just save us both the time and effort and don't bother butting in with irrelevant opinions. Especially if you couldn't even bother to read what was already said.

The commenter's throwaway account never agreed it was an extreme. I agreed it was an extreme, but also that disproving that one extreme does nothing to contradict his argument. Yet again you aren't responding to the argument.

This entire exchange is baffling. You seem to be missing the point for a third time, and now you're misrepresenting what I said. Welcome to the internet, I guess.

You have twice removed the substance of an argument and responded to an irrelevant nitpick. Here's what the OP said:

> He literally used the same prompt as the article. > Claim: "ChatGPT's Chess Elo is 1400"

> Reality: ChatGPT gives illegal moves (this happened to article author too),

> something a 1400 ranked player would never do

> Result: ChatGPT's rank is not 1400.

This is a completely fair argument that makes perfect sense to anyone with knowledge of competitive chess. I have never seen a 1400 make an illegal move. He probably hasn't either. Your point is literally correct in the sense that at some point in history a 1400 rated player has made an illegal move, but it completely misses the point of his argument: ChatGPT makes illegal moves at such an astronomically high rate that it wouldn't even be allowed to even play competitively, hence it cannot be accurately assessed at 1400 rating.

Imagine you made a bot that spewed random letters and said "My bot writes English as well as a native speaker, so long as you remove all of the letters that don't make sense." A native English speaker says, "You can't say the bot speaks English as well as a native speaker, since a native speaker would never write all those random letters." You would be correct in pointing out that sometimes native speakers make mistakes, but you would also be entirely missing the point. That's what's happening here.

This argument is pretty flimsy. ChatGPT makes illegal moves frequently. In all my years of playing competitive chess (from 1000 to 2200), I have never seen an illegal move. I'm sure it has happened to someone, but it's extremely rare. ChatGPT does it all the time. No one is arguing that humans never make illegal moves; they're arguing that ChatGPT makes illegal moves at a significantly higher rate than a 1400 player does (therefore ChatGPT does not have a 1400 rating).

Edit: Without reading everything again, I'll assume someone said "never." They're probably assuming the reader understands that "never" really means "with an infinitesimal probability," since we're talking about humans. If you're trying to argue that "some 1400 player has made an illegal move at some point," then I agree with that statement, and I also think it's irrelevant since the frequency of illegal moves made by ChatGPT compared to the frequency of illegal moves made by a 1400 rated player is many orders of magnitudes higher.

I think his point is that 1400 level players don't make illegal moves, therefore ChatGPT is not playing at the level of a 1400 level player.

Same exact thing happened to a friend of mine who was just about to launch. He didn't realize that he had only paid for the dynos, but was using a free tier DB. No communication at all, and they wiped out his data. Needless to say, he is no longer a customer.

He's moved on to Render since then (and he's now backing up his data offsite). Painful lesson to learn, but at least he hadn't launched his product yet.

Doesn't that assume 100% of a human's daily calories burn is due to brain activity?

Do you have any source for this? I've been playing Counter-Strike since the original beta, and it's been popular since its creation, far before skins existed. As far as the funding goes, I have no idea, but would love to see some numbers.

I'm a B2C SAAS founder and paid 7.1% to Stripe last month.

As a single sample: my SAAS startup pays just over 7% to Stripe.

Is this really the case? While CRDT's are designed to work peer-to-peer, they don't need to be fully connected to all clients. Forcing the synchronization through controlled nodes (a server or cluster) allows adding read/write permissions. Depending on the use case, it may require additional logic for reversing operations before propagating to other clients, or in some cases forcing a client to revert to a snapshot (this can be a bit complex). That's an approach I've used in the past.

Have I overlooked something (highly likely)?

You can do this type of analysis for most software, since building on existing solutions allows us to write powerful tools with less code. Listing out the existing solutions that allow developers to write less code doesn't necessarily mean the new solution is bad.

Every time I read a post like this about Kubernetes, I scratch my head. It takes me maybe half a day to deploy a CI/CD pipeline pushing into a new Kubernetes cluster with persistent DB's, configuration management, auto-renewing SSL certs and autoscaling API/web servers per environment. I'm by no means an expert, but I've been running 10+ sites this way for various clients over the past five years, with almost zero headache and downtime.

When I compare this solution to the mishmash of previous technologies I used prior to Kubernetes, it clearly comes out on top (and I use/d Terraform religiously). Setting up automatic server provisioning, rolling updates, rollbacks, auto-scaling, continuous deployment, SSL, load balancing, configuration management, etc... requires an incredible amount of work. Kubernetes either provides most of these out of the box, or makes them trivial to implement.

The only way I understand this argument is if you're building an extremely simple application. The nice thing about simple applications is that you can build them using any technology you want, because they're simple. Despite this, I often Kubernetes anyways, because it's _so simple_ to take a Helm chart and update the image name.