Why would you give ammunition to someone who can shoot you with no negative consequences? They prove over and over that they can't be trusted, so the smart move is to take them at their word, and not trust them.
I wish politics didn't revolve so heavily around party bias. There's nothing about this that would appeal strictly to democrat politicians or their constituents.
Do people normally see something a voting block does, and just accept/reject that view without even reading anything else?
But maybe that's the result of paywalls. We've trained people not to read anything past the headline...
I mostly use redis for pub/sub communication between services. If the app wasn't a collection of knative functions, and instead a monolith, it would be cool to also use redis for event based communication.
Full agree. It certainly feels like people are afraid of imagined threats, there just is no way there's so much rampant crime that people's living space is broken into so often, that surveiling everything all the time is a valid solution.
Like, I live in Detroit, and we don't have enough crime to justify it.
I think it comes from decades of fear mongering over how "dangerous" stocks and options are. If you can, instead, explain to an llm what your goals are, it can set up a simple buy-and-hold for you.
Basically what investment agents used to do in the 80s-90s where the only way to make a trade was to call someone at the broker and explain what you want.
Taking a step back, I see this as what llms are actually useful for. Empowering people to do things they might otherwise need to study and research for a few weeks to do. When ultimately, that research is just unnecessary gatekeeping.
So if you kidnap them, hold them in a bunker for a month, then release them, it will pay out. That's probably a positive thing for the world somehow, right?