> When a new article is inserted, there is a higher probability it will be inserted in a large gap than a small gap, so it should balance out.
That’s a good point and I’m not entirely sure why it (appears to) not work that way. Maybe it’s because that interval has a higher likelihood, but there is no preference for numbers towards the middle, that would dissect it into (roughly) equal parts?
If you randomly draw z numbers from a bucket of numbers from 0 to 10000 times x, the gaps will differ because there is no mechanism that would make some number with close neighbors less or more likely to be drawn than any other remaining number.
It’s only once your supply of numbers runs low that differences will start to equalize, reaching 1 when you have exhausted your supply.
Besides, the author isn’t really making an argument. They are giving you actual data showing the differences to the next lowest number. It’s hard to argue with that.
While I understand how inflation may, in theory, be something that could change with some breakthrough in economics (even though I don't buy that inflation is actually a problem, or that cryptocurrencies represent such a breakthrough), I have no idea how they would be of help fighting "corruption and bad governance".
Which is the problem with that community: they seem to have these extremely naive yet cynical view of politicians just being "stupid", money being wasted, everyone being corrupt etc. And that, somehow, their funny little hashes are the silver bullet to solve these issues.
It can only be "endlessly amusing" because there are "endless" of these bumps, so far.
But, as with cryptocurrencies, it just doesn't make any sense. Maybe a boxer taking it on the chin round after round can derive some satisfaction from still being conscious. But they aren't making any progress and would be rather stupid to continue considering it a winning strategy.
It's not "literally" stealing, because it doesn't deprive anyone of the use the source code. Those two points were somehow extremely obvious to everyone here as long as it was music and movies we were talking about.
And Github themselves have stated that only 0.1% of the Copilot output contains chunks taken verbatim from the learning set. Of those, the vast majority are likely to be boilerplate so generic it's silly to claim ownership, and maybe sometimes impossible to avoid.
Yes, the audiophile market is uniquely stupid, in that they tend to make specific claims that are objectively wrong. The ethernet cables come to mind, or any (digital) cable that's supposed to be better at conducting a signal than any generic spec-compliant alternative.
Wine, for example, just doesn't usually come with specific claims, except it's "good", or "fruity", or "created in the rich terroir of the L'Alpesian Valley". That region may not actually be better than any other, but it is different. Beyond that, everyone knows it's a matter of taste, with no objective measures of "good" or "bad", although there are obviously (imprecise) trends that many people tend to agree with (i. e. wine is better than vinegar).
Endlessly fucking around with your equipment, priding yourself on replacing a $20 extended warranty with a $40 soldering iron, two hours of your time, and three deep breaths of mercury is just as much an "identity" as enjoying Apple products.
And considering the total numbers doing either of these two things, I believe the tinkerers have far more need to tell everyone about it than the "fanboys".
Because there aren't any "natural" / "neutral" / whatever speakers / headphones / cochlear implants. They all get a signal and a task: make this sound the way the listener wants.
"Just make it sound as it did when it was (live) recorded"? That's not going to happen even assuming some "perfect" speakers (not headphones), unless you can also supply the room, audience, humidity, and appropriate level of inebriation.
Apple has done a lot of of work on adjusting AirPods to your head and ear, IIRC. That's all software, and exactly the sort of thing they've been good at, even in the last few years.
It's basically iPhone camera vs. Canon & Nikon, the sequel. How many times did people on HN insist phone cameras will never be as good as SLRs, because the latter have the five pound of glass it takes to create good photos?
Turns out software and sensors are a pretty good substitute. While some features of good lenses are still not quite there (bokeh), they've eviscerated them in other, arguably more important disciplines (low light).
This tool is something that Facebook is trying to sell. To other companies. So you're missing the point with your superficial speculation as to the balance of power between Facebook and its employees.
For that reason, I'll keep the rebuttal short: laws are still valid, as far as I know. And this tool is blatantly illegal. Facebook employees also don't typically face starvation if they can't find a new job right away. And considering how rare unions are in the tech sector, and how common they are in, for example, automotive, my hunch is unionisation is more likely to happen at companies facing economic pressure.
That's a myth. Most people are rich because their parents were. Most of the rest is rich because they were/are lawyers or medical doctors. (For the super-rich, business and finance becomes more important. But for your average "middle-class rich", lawyers and doctors just dwarf their numbers. Business also has highly unequal outcomes).
As to why this myth persists, I guess it goes well with American puritanical roots. Many possibly don't belief in a strict correlation, if not causality, of everyone's financial situation and their individual moral character, but still promote the idea. See also: prosperity gospel, Ayn Rand.
I've heard a decent amount of wrong takes on Section 230. But this is the most bizarre, yet.
Neither the CDA, nor section 230 specifically, create the sort of publisher/platform dichotomy people seem to be hung up on.
And Section 230 does exactly the opposite of what people commonly think it does. It's actually right there, in the text:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of (a) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable [...]
That seems really easy to understand: you can delete nazi propaganda, porn, bad jokes, or just random user content from your platform without running the risk of thereby assuming liability for the rest.
Yes, you're simply wrong. Government agencies do not have a blanket exemption from GDPR rules. There are some difference, and EU countries have some autonomy in the particulars. But as a general principle, the rules are the same: data may only be stored to fulfil a valid purpose, processing and transmission require consent, etc.
Fines don't make any sense in that regard because the government is never fined: first, because it wouldn't make much sense, as fines are payable to that very government anyway. But also because government officials are simply expected to respect court verdicts without the neccessity of fines.
If you don't trust that system you're out of luck, because it's how every single other protection you have against the government is and has been enforced since the inception of "the rule of law".
It's far cheaper than the US. I get 6MB/s downloads for 15€/month. For mobile, there's a chart making the rounds on Twitter, and it seems to me Germany is very much in line with other countries. Of course it's more expensive than it is in poorer countries in eastern Europe, as everything is.
That’s a good point and I’m not entirely sure why it (appears to) not work that way. Maybe it’s because that interval has a higher likelihood, but there is no preference for numbers towards the middle, that would dissect it into (roughly) equal parts?