Can't you simply argue: I never agreed to this, so I'm not obliged to pay this?
Americans love to pretend that healthcare can somehow be a free market (it can't), but a free market requires voluntarily entering into a transaction. Costs that can be forced upon you without your agreement need to be tightly regulated and subject to clear caps.
Would be nice if you could somehow connect GPU-levels of parallel floating point cores to that amount of memory. I guess that's what the big AI datacenters are doing, but how can we do that on a budget?
Exactly. Amsterdam has been trying to get as many cars as possible out of the city center, and the city is that much better for it. Use your car to leave the city, but not to get to the center. There's bikes and trams for that.
WTF? In inner cities, bikes are the sensible option for 90% of traffic. Not for emergency services and larger freight of course, but it's possible to aim for a sensible mix.
I think it's entirely baseless. It's pretty clear men can be very emotional about the decisions they make. Look at all the stupid wars throughout the centuries based on pride, anger, greed or vengeance. Look at all the counterproductive economic policies, or counterproductive police systems. And if you question it, all the arguments are based on feelings.
There have been rational leaders and politicians, but there have also been many irrational and emotional ones, and I see no evidence men are less affected than women. If anything, it seems to be the other way around, although there's not that much data yet on female decision making in politics.
But I'm pretty sure that the claim that women would be more emotional, is itself driven by emotion rather than data.
Toyota is terrible at this. Various Toyota's we've had required you to either agree to obey traffic rules, warned about data costs when connecting your phone, or a variety of other things. Super annoying and distracting. As soon as the car starts moving, all the parts should be doing their job. That's no time to nag the driver.
> the car warns you with some combination of a light, a sound, or a vibration.
That could be more distracting than the distraction it's trying to detect.
Our car warns you when it thinks you're about to crash into the car in front of you, and it does so with a very loud and annoying noise. I hadn't noticed it for years until it suddenly went off several times in a couple of days, so maybe there are circumstances where it gets overly sensitive.
Of the 3 times it warned that I can clearly remember, 1 was correct: I was indeed getting close to the car in front of me (I was aware of it and was already about to start braking when the alarm went off. The other two were I think the shadow of a viaduct I went under, and probably a parked car next to the road.
It also seems to detect max speed based on signs next to the road. Fortunately it doesn't do anything annoying with that information, because it's frequently wrong.
I had the same. Just before Fable became available, I was working on a document building on a ton of research that I wasn't entirely sure about (I don't think it counts as research itself, except in the Facebook sense). I had Opus and Gemini review it a couple of times until they and I thought it looked pretty good. Then Fable appeared, I had it review it, and it still found a ton of errors.
It's definitely good. Or at least it was. I'm not sure how badly they nerfed it.
In this regard, LLMs are probably much more than two decades behind. If they're even going in the same direction at all. SQL has been around for a very long time, and parameterised queries almost as long.
It's trivial to protect against SQL injection. It requires only a bit of discipline to avoid concatenating user data into queries. Anyone still vulnerable at this point is simply incompetent.
Exactly. SQL injection was caused by treating user input as part of the instruction instead of as the pure data that it was intended as. Separating those two fixed it. Prompt injection is unavoidable because the user input is intended as instruction.
It's probably safer for them to be vague about who exactly they mean. Both to stay legal and to give voters the chance to project whichever people they hate most onto that policy.
> It's like bragging that you took 10,000 steps to reach the store by walking in circles when you could have taken 500 steps if you just walked straight.
My wife does exactly that. For the exercise. She makes large detours to go anywhere. The end result is a healthier body.
How this translates to software, I don't know. I don't think AI benefits from this exercise.