> Which raises the question, why would you work hard to create value for others in a system like that?
Because creating things for others is a fulfilling way to live your life, and creates a richer society.
Valve does not want to maximize revenue from the controller sales. If they did, they would auction the controllers. That would get rid of scalpers, and ensure each controllers is sold at the highest number the market would bear. They are not doing that, which implies revenue-maximization is not their goal.
My intuition is that they are trying to improve the health of the gaming ecosystem because that benefits their core business which is selling games. For them it's important that some people who are more price-sensitive get this controller. Because those customers buy different games than those who would pay top dollar, and those games are important to Valve. And because they promote gaming in ways that don't bring revenue directly but do create harder to measure value.
> I read on HN that AI's can just interpolate the data they have seen in training
No. That can be said about LLMs, but not about all forms of AI. The technique used is not a LLM.
Sadly we've bastardized the term AI that, if it ever meant anything, it's meaningless now. The currently most voted thread in this post discuses the topic.
The study that defined the 10x engineer defined him as 10x as good as the worst engineer. If there is a 0.1x engineer, and a 1x engineer, that 1x engineer is the very definition of a 10x engineer.
> Lines of code has always been a terrible metric. But all else being equal it is a measure.
A terrible metric is _worse_ than no metric. A terrible metric can _only_ lead you in the wrong direction. "No metric" means saying we don't know, and that leads us to stop and reconsider. But we've taken "move fast and break things" as a mantra, and we'd rather run towards any direction than stay still.
Using LoC as a metric for quality of LLMs will promote LLMs that write more code. It's better to say we have no way to compare different LLMs than it is to say "let's use the LLMs that produced more LoC because at least we can measure that". We, as an industry, should be focusing on developing better metrics for quality, not on improving LLMs based on known-bad metrics. We should be turning to the computer scientists, not to the venture capitalists.
When a pundit talks about how many lines of code an LLM has created, we should lose all respect for them. It's as if someone talking about physics measured the phlogiston, or as if a doctor started measuring our skulls. We know these theories don't work, and anyone using them should be mocked.
Just because it's impossible to solve a problem 100% doesn't mean that it's impossible to improve the state of things. Perfect is the enemy of good. There aren't that many people doing random chaotic damage, and it's not worth it to protect against all their potential harm.
Freedom of speech is not defined by the US constitution. Free speech is an ideological stance, not a legal definition. US laws protects some forms of free speech and not others.
Same, none of the ones I worked on. But I did more work for Nickelodeon than CN, so I'm not really surprised. I only remember one CN one I did, but I might have worked on two or three that I'd know if I saw them again...
There are very few from 2008-2012 which is when I was working on that.
It's easier (or at least different) to say to your friends "let's go to a phone free bar" than it its to say "let's go to a bar, phone-free".
In the first case, a third party came up with the idea, and you are subjecting yourselves to their idea. In the second case, it's your idea, and your friends are subjecting themselves to your idea. Really if you are proposing, there's always a bit of "your idea" there, but the "blame" can be shared with someone else who's not in the group.
A system where this can happen is healthy. The alternative is a system where once legislation fails to pass you are forbidden to modify it and try again. _That_ would be a broken system, where compromise is impossible, and attempting to make any change is a very risky move because you might fail, forever. There would be a chilling effect, legislation would take longer to change, and laws would become frozen in the past.
What we are seeing here is checks and balances, working as intended.
The point of PRs is not to avoid mistakes (though sometimes this can happen). Automated tests are the tool to weed out those kinds of mistakes. The point of PRs is to spread knowledge. I try to read every PR, even if it's already approved, so I'm aware of what changes there are in code I'm going to own. They are the RSS feed of the codebase.
I think you are discounting the mental, physical and social toll of being locked up for 10 years. Without autonomy, without privacy, without access to your loved ones (some of whom might die, and the rest will likely have irreparably damaged relationship after), treated as a bad person, surrounded by criminals. It's not "you get 400M for aging 10 years", or for dying ten years younger; I might take those deals. It's spending those 10 years in a prison, and dealing with the consequences of that after.
At no point in my life would I choose to spend 10 years in jail for $400m. Only if my current living situation was very poor and this was my only way out of it. I can sort of imagine why one would... but it seems like an awful decision to me.
It seems more plausible to me he actually doesn't have the gold.
The title doesn't match the article, and it's also not true. The term may have become more widespread after the 2013 book mentioned in the article, but it certainly existed prior to it.
Do we know that we don't see adverse health effects on those populations? I couldn't find any studies on the subject. I think it would be very hard to measure, since you can't really compare without comparing populations of different countries, and at that point any effects can be attributed to a myriad of differences between countries.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long & generally approv’d"
The amount of damage these cameras have caused is totally disproportional to whatever meager benefit they may have wrought. These are antisocial machines.
I think if you materially support the nazis, you are a nazi, regardless of what might be your internal justification. This is a distinction without a difference.
Good regulation is good. Bad regulation is bad. Being anti-regulation is dogmatic.