flamingo_pinyata @ flamingo_pinyata @sopuli.xyz

Posts

13

Comments

817

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think anyone asked me that question phrased specifically like that. It's usually "what do you find appealing about our company".

But I was asked another stereotypical one - what my biggest flaw is. Apparently my answer is considered a good one "of course I have flaws but I'm on a job interview, I'm not going to tell it here"

He also didn't invent a programming language.
For a file system you only get one murder.

A chess-specific algorithm beat a language model at chess. Shocking!

Try training a chess model. Actually I think it's already been done, machines have been consistently better at chess than humans for a while now.

I disagree with the conclusion of the article, although the contents do touch on some important points.

The article itself claims there aren't enough resources for everyone to live a "developed country lifestyle", which is connected to higher emissions per capita.
One way forward is to reduce the consumption. But the other way is to reduce the population so there is enough for everyone to be at least somewhat wasteful. Imo, the best would be both.

Because they are ok with other instances operating without censorship. Or with different ideological bias. Some people want their safe space. I do consider it generally harmful, but that's how humans are - we want to discuss with like-minded people even if it limits the range of discussion.

On the balance, Lemmy existing is a benefit to humanity. You don't have to talk to developers themselves.

We do need to reduce the human population. About 4-5 billion would be ideal.
On the negative side, we don't know how to handle this situation of declining population. The entire human history is one of non-stop growth interrupted only by catastrophic pandemics, which were the only way the population dropped so far.

Musk is a narcissist who got very lucky in life. But still he is a human, bad human but relatable in the sense you understand his flaws.

Thiel is something else. Sociopath I guess. Dude is not human and doesn't function according to any understandable human psychology

Airbnb. I used to think they were a perfect business. Saw a gap in the market, created a decent product, invested in their users (back in the day they would even send a photographer to take good photos of your property).
Unfortunately the consequences turned out to be awful.

There is so much more to knowing a language than literal translation.
You'll never understand memes using machine translation. Even if AI can do something like "explain why this image is funny", it just doesn't hit the same.

The way I understood it (probably wrong): imagine if a point like thing, but is actually a wave, hits something else. It will leave a trace on the detector curving in a certain direction. This is interpreted as angular momentum aka spin.

Looking up how to do something, as an improved stackoverflow. Especially if it provides sources in the answer.

Boilerplate unit tests. Yes, yes, I know - use parametrized test, but it's often not practical.

Mass refactoring. This is tricky because you need to thoroughly review it, but it saves you annoying typing.

I'm sure there's more, it's far from useless. But you need to know what you want it to do and how to check if done correctly.

It doesn't help that immigrants are scary. Instead of addressing it on the emotional level and calming down the fears, politicians choose to gaslight those who are afraid (rationally or not).

That's true. My argument is that before, when people had more children, they didn't care about bringing them into a bad world. Even 100 years ago it was expected some of your children will die.

Now, children dying is not a nice thing. Luckily we solved it and these days if you behave like our ancestors you will have too many children for society to be sustainable.

But if you're in a situation where there are too few children for a sustainable society, encouraging risk would help.

All being said, I actually believe we need to reduce the human population. But we don't know how to handle a sudden decline, or if we can level it out later. So a gradual decrease would be preferable.

I'm noticing a pattern here. Not just about Japanese society but many others as well.

It's never "we want to have a child so we will"
It's always "this is a series of rules, procedures and conditions to fulfill before you can have a child"

Finally, a good use case for AI

Probably not. I build my philosophy bit by bit, by being exposed to a lot of different often contradictory ideas though the internet.

I would have never had patience for reading all the classic philosophers (they wrote a lot). Even less with modern ones (they are very niche these days). But having a summary of anything at my fingertips made me able to cross connect ideas and form something coherent on my own.

Wasn't really a fan as such, but I also though as far as billionaires go he's at least useful to humanity.
He should have kept to what he was good at - marketing big ideas. Unfortunately narcissists don't work that way.

It took much longer than it should have.

One of the greatest successes of Netanyahu (and catastrophic failing of pro-Gaza activists who accepted the narrative) is to equalize "support for Israel existing" and "support for genocide".

All of these?

They usually have to do many takes of one scene.
While I don't doubt that the real stuff is easier to find on the set than the fake, it's just not practical.