Forgive my poor phrasing. I used Fable for quite a lot in the time I have had access to it. I mean to say that the only actual utility I have found for it was the final review process.
I can confidently say that Opus is the most powerful model I need 99% of the time. Fable might be marginally more capable than Opus for just about anything you might throw at it, but those gains aren't worth the cost for me.
I have only really used Fable as a final pass on something. A "Take a look at everything we did so far, and make sure we didn't forget something" kind of review prompt.
But it is a huge waste of money for most coding tasks. Opus is still overkill most of the time, too.
While I can appreciate the principle of not blindly trusting OTC medicine marketing, it is not realistic to expect every person to be highly competent in fully understanding their medical choices. It is far more reasonable to expect the companies marketing healthcare products to be honest to their customers.
If anything, you need honesty from healthcare companies in the first place if you're even going to begin making an informed decision. You're putting the cart before the horse here: people absolutely should be doing their own research before medicating themselves, but it is the OTC companies that obstruct that.
And, secondary to all of this, your analogy about shampoo is misinformed. Still, it is fitting for this scenario, but not in the way you intended. There are lots of different hair types, including ethnic hairstyles that require specific treatments. There are also a number of lifestyle choices that can change your hair treatment needs. As a result, the shampoo aisle actually is stocked with a wildly varying assortment of haircare choices, but actually figuring out what product works best for your needs can be challenging because it is walled behind layers of marketing nonsense that don't inform the consumer adequately on what makes each product different. This isn't much different than the problems in the medicine aisle.
It took a lot of secondhand research to find the ideal hair care product for my thick, curly hair that would mitigate the damage of thrice-weekly swimming in a chlorinated pool. I can assure you, not everything in the shampoo aisle is exactly the same. It was especially hard figuring this out as a man, when so many products are arbitrarily marketed to specific genders.
There's an ocean of difference between "moved some magazines" and "helped organize the event and explicitly called for violence". You know that, though; you're just intentionally missing the point.
That's really hard to swallow when the current president, who is responsible for the extreme uptick in ICE activity, pardoned 1,600 people who conspired against the federal government in favor of his agenda, but then that same government hands life-ruining prison sentences to people who weren't even present for conspiring against ICE.
Especially when the crux of this entire case was that the convicted are members of a terrorist organization - a fact that was declared at the whim of this same president.
I'm not saying that some of the people convicted don't deserve consequences for their actions, especially violence like shooting at officers. I'm not saying that this was a lawful assembly, especially given the documented intent to breach the facility and use pyrotechnics offensively. I am saying that this is an extreme escalation in action against dissent against the Republican agenda, with a highly visible inequality in enforcement against those who dissent similarly against the Democratic agenda.
If this kind of heavy-handed action was taken against everyone who challenges our government, I would still be concerned, but it is doubly concerning that some members of our society appear to have the permission to do these things, while we destroy the lives of others with different politics.
There are lots of safety arguments for street lighting.
For one, as a city dweller, I would be absolutely terrified walking around at night, having to rely on a flashlight to see anything. Not just a "scared of the dark" thing, but good outdoor lighting discourages things like robberies and assaults. And sure, cars could just use their headlights, but still, visibility in populated areas would be very bad, and safety for pedestrians at night would be awful.
Why shouldn't someone divest from big tech companies if they think they are harmful?
If I found out that my local bakery was funding regressive far-right politics, I absolutely would stop going to that bakery.
These are silly questions with easy answers if you have basic moral standards. By mocking people for having standards, you just reveal you lack them yourself.
Yeah, what's your point? Plenty of us are actively opposing the evil things our tax dollars fund all the time. If we could safely opt out of paying taxes for those things, we would.
But Mullvad isn't the government. I can get a VPN from somewhere else. I can opt out of funding something that I consider morally abhorrent.
>Being in a tolerant and intellectually open environment is also liberating and promotes truth seeking
I agree 100%, which is why the dehumanizing intolerance of the Mullvad CEO completely disqualifies your organization from being on the same side as that statement.
What you did say, anecdotally, is that pedestrians would be safer, in direct response to being presented with empirical evidence that pedestrians are, in fact, not safer...
So my point here is that, whatever argument you are making, it is already debunked. You're arguing against statistics with platitudes.
I'm honestly surprised there isn't more political outcry. The administration has a party affiliation that, typically, insists on free market principles and is against government overreach and regulation.
You would think that this government, attempting to puppeteer the most rapidly growing industry in the world, would have more people outraged.
Where are all of the people crying "Communist"? This is one of those moments where it is less of an overreaction.
I 100% agree with you, but I do sorta get the other point being made here.
Assault rifles have been used to slaughter classrooms full of children in some of the most bone-chilling acts of violence imaginable, and people have such a weird identity complex around guns that they go to outrageous lengths to avoid any meaningful action. We've even seen parents of murdered children accused by gun-rights activists of being paid actors and deliberately threatening 2nd amendment rights.
Car culture in America is similarly toxic, with people having strong automobile-centric identities. The culture surrounding giant trucks is the most extreme, and there's a mountain of dashcam video online suggesting that the kinds of people who buy these massive truck are also quite reckless behind the wheel and do intentionally aggressive things with them, including deliberately harassing behaviors like "rolling coal". These aesthetics and behaviors are enshrined by popular political establishments on the right, meaning that challenging any of it becomes a partisan fight.
The backlash of banning these kinds of vehicles would be straight out of the movie Idiocracy, but there are enough jerks in this country that it would completely block any progress from ever being made.
Well, the statistics say otherwise, so I don't get the argument you're making. That you would trust the car's sensors over your own observations and judgments might actually mean you'd be a more dangerous driver in a newer truck.
I can confidently say that Opus is the most powerful model I need 99% of the time. Fable might be marginally more capable than Opus for just about anything you might throw at it, but those gains aren't worth the cost for me.