tidenly

I think you just stumbled upon a one-off. I've lived here my entire adult life and never encountered this.

I got hayfever on my 3rd year of living here, and it seems like quite a common pattern among immigrants I've noticed. I have hayfever back in the UK too, but I guess I didn't have a Cedar allergy - so it took time to develop.

Idiotic and completely untrue statement.

You get your waist and height measured as part of your routine health examination every year since you become a worker. Eyes, hearing, etc are also included. Its just your body's "metrics".

Your company CAN look at these (they rarely care to), but they can't fire you for them - you especially aren't fined over it. Japan is an incredibly hard country to fire or penalize workers. They can only check them in the first place because its the company that pays for these screenings in most cases. Free EKG, blood screens, and other basic health marker checks.

I'm so tired of people spreading orientalist crap about this country on the internet.

While it's true a lot of people (particularly white Americans who've never experienced being a minority) will complain about minor things like just being treated differently, there are some obvious issues like housing discrimination, where you can be a incredibly high earner with a stable job, living in Japan for decades, and still be told no just because you're a foreigner. (To be fair, I think discriminating on visa length, time in Japan so far, income, job type is perfectly fine - just no reason to outright say no to all foreigners)

Small town living is kind of a different kettle of fish though. There can be lots of committees, local rules and association fees you're expected to take part in. Lots of these aren't really forced or regulated "by law", but someone from there is just expected to play into them. Lots of younger Japanese people and foreigners move there, learn about these and find them unbearable -and if you don't play ball you can be treated badly.

In rural areas though the main thing for foreigners is that you'll kind of become a town character "foreigner-san". Kind of unavoidable when you're the only foreign face many of these people will have ever met.

I think some foreigners have this dream if they assimilate enough people will just pretend they're not a foreigner anymore, which personally I think is unrealistic and silly - you are foreign. The truly happy people here find a way to integrate while coming to peace with the fact they're obviously different.

I left the UK after graduating at 21, fully intending to come back within a couple of years. Its weird watching it from the outside for 10 years waiting for a "good time" to move back and realizing that time isn't coming more and more each year.

The salaries in Japan arent great honestly, but mine, the quality of life and how far my money goes is so much better than if I lived back at the UK. Every time I go back it seems more and more people are struggling to pay for basic expenses - and even if I moved back it seems get a great salary I'd have to live in London, which I dislike.

I imagine lots of people far more talented than me must also be feeling the pull to not stay in the country too. Its festering politically and economically. Besides family there really is no benefit to remaining.

The variance for most traits is higher within races than it is between them. I assume OPs point is the division into categories "black, white, asian, latino" is arbitrary, and you could easily reduce or add more groups as you see fit. Theres nowhere in science you can look that will tell you how many groups there are and where to draw the lines between them - i.e a construct.

From an also non-USian.

Does that have any legal basis? It sounds a lot like what Google did for their Java engine, which essentially rewrote the entire engine with the same APIs, while referencing the original source code. Didn't the courts decide it was fine?

A lot of people dislike LLMs and generative AI (fairly) and are reflexively trying to reach for tools in our legal framework, claiming it's obviously already illegal. I don't think this is going to work. Generative AI is quite obviously novel to anyone who isn't in denial - and claiming existing copyright laws are going to cover it seems like a lost cause.

We need new laws. Especially regarding deepfakes, it's shocking how many people think revenge porn laws and such are going to be enough here. Rather than just focusing on the data usage, we need more fundamental laws and rights, like the right to control representations of ourselves, like Japan has, where producing images or voice/video in your likeness is prosecutable straight out. Likewise we need laws that explicitly target data use for training that is separate to copyright.

The way LLMs are trained is obviously too similar to how humans learn, and the transformation and then output produce works that are novel based on that "learning", just like humans do. This is so fundamentally different to what copyright laws were made to cover, I find it infuriating how many people handwave these arguments away. Only in perfect 1-to-1 regurgitation does it even feel close to something copyright would be able to cover.

I used to be one of these and honestly I'm so tired of Google as a company lately I'm really considering jumping over to Apple's ecosystem.

Google just have an incredibly weak product team, across both hardware and software.

Only slightly related, I have a really bad thing with dental dams, clamps, and anything blocking my mouth - I get really paranoid im going to choke and die - and start overthinking swallowing my saliva and freaking out. Especially taking the moulds for my teeth, it really feels like the back of my throat is getting blocked up by the putty, and they just leave me sitting there with it in.

My dentist would always lie to me saying "just a little longer left" (even when there was about an hour remaining) which really didnt help, and after we finished about 5 teeth worth of treatments she said she "realised" I have 3 more places she wants to do as well..

It sounds hysterical I'm sure, but I dont think she realised that several times per each treatment I'm genuinely convinced I'm about to die - like making peace with god level. I got over myself and was in a really good cycle of going because I wanted to finally fix everything, and then that extra "reveal" of another 2 rounds of treatment just broke me, I couldn't do it.

I thought after you take estrogen long enough you don't have to take t blockers or fin anyway? Once your body see's you have enough sex hormone doesn't it naturally stop T, even if the hormone is estrogen? (Sorry for the stupid question)

Sorry to rant a little, but as someone who grew up with HIV in the family, this odd pressure against people who might be hesitant to sleep with someone U=U always feels uncomfortable and manipulative to me. I see it a lot around the internet.

The way I was raised, I'm the only person I trust with my sexual health. I would never trust someones word they're tested recently and have unprotected sex with them. I wouldn't trust someone saying they're on PrEP and have unprotected sex with them either. I can only trust myself. U=U is exactly the same situation.

In a zero trust mindset like that, someone telling me they're U=U only tells me they have HIV. I have HIV+ friends who struggle to take their meds at the right time every day, or forget. And I also know people who have lied about when they last took their STI screening to hookups.

I'm also sure a bunch of people would get angry if you asked a U=U person to show you their latest CD4 count or viral load proof too - so what am I to do, just trust that, unlike everyone else, U=U people are perfectly honest, and never screw up taking their meds?

The response to this is often "anyone COULD have HIV, U=U people are actually safer because they have it locked down", but again to me this is about as trustworthy as "anyone COULD have HIV, but people on PrEP have it locked down". It all relies on the trust the other person is on top of their shit.

I wonder to what extent is hallucination a result of a "must answer" bias?

When sampling data all over the internet, your data set only represents people who did write, did respond to questions - with no representation of what they didn't. Add into that confidently wrong people - people who respond to questions on, say, StackOverflow, even if they're wrong, and suddenly you have a data set that prefers replying bullshit, because there's no data for the people who didnt know the answer and wrote nothing.

Inherently there's no representation in the datasets of "I don't know" null values.

LLMs are forced to reply, in contrast, so they "bullshit" a response that sounds right even though not answering or saying you don't know would be more appropriate - because no-one does that on the internet.

I always assumed this was a big factor, but am I completely off the mark?

Im guessing they used all those credits to set up those instances, but never took the extra step to add log ingestion or any kind of monitoring. Unique constraint violations peaking should have at least sent some kind of mail or slack notification a few hours after release (putting aside the "it didnt happen during the day because we push to prod several times daily" - which is insane in its own right).

Nothing here really sounds like GPTs fault to me. The issue is something that could easily have been done by a human and missed in PR.

Can you give an example of this? Laravel is very modular - you don't have to use it all if you want to call out to something more complex.