Because the example just demonstrates an example of conditioning, but the implications are much wider. The idea is that one signal can be replaced with another, which could be beneficial or detrimental, could intentional or accidental, may or may not be long lasting, but mostly just applies to a lot of situations quite a lot different than the exact example but the example serves as a convenient, familiar shorthand for referring to it easily.
Because killing a leader without a plan for who will replace them isn’t very efficient. A leader, unless he is particularly skilled, is rarely string enough to actually have that big of an influence but it’s enabled by the institutions. The only way to change the institutions is weakening the ones you want to weaken.
Great point somewhat stated in the article, that AI is like an amplifier of talent, and that works both ways. Amplifying good skills is amazing, amplifying average skills is both good and bad. Amplifying poor skills can be catastrophic.
Like giving an experienced hunter a bigger gun might result in better outcomes or bigger game, but a bigger gun in the hands of someone who doesn’t know how to weild it just results in bigger holes in things you didn’t want holes in in the first place.
Normally a novice programmer would break things incrementally, but a poor understand of coding plus AI can hose things exponentially in ways that look like they’re almost working every step of the way.
Have you watched the Stephen King movie about that?
Probably because they thought physical discipline was an effective method of training at an impressionable age but was obviously only a method of punishment once you reached adulthood. Or maybe because enough of the people who made the laws could imagine themselves on the side of the prisoner, but none of them would ever be in the position of being a child again so there wasn’t enough self interest for that law to be different.
Basically probably no good reason, but just a misguided vague ‘nip it in the bud’ attitude carried over the generations.
Sounds more like a list of things someone might be rage baited into saying
The only way it makes any sense is if you did it quickly and sloppily.
If you were doing it quickly and to anything approaching a reasonable approximation of ‘your best’, then the teacher was just frustrated that the work was too easy for you any they hated seeing anyone getting a break but they saw no way to give you more work than the other kids. Most likely because they were too lazy to come up with a good tiered lesson plan.
He’s asking why Trump decided to go
I literally broke an accidental streak of not logging into x for like a year to make sure the last three ‘screenshots’ of trump weren’t real, including this one. Seriously though, was the ‘praise Allah’ one real or not? I honestly can’t tell for sure if it’s satire or just something one of his handlers deleted.
You can tell this isn’t true because there is no way trump plans to do anything with any kind of intelligence.
That is true, but it is also fair to point out that you are proposing solidarity with someone who voted for fully supporting these negative things happening to other people, even if there was only a vague sense of what that might mean, and is specifically upset now that it unexpectedly turned around on him and his circle. We have to stand with and support someone we might have to fully expect to continue doing the exact same thing as the opportunity arise.
It’s true his interests overlap our own, and raising everyone up is in our best interests, but just realize that we want to give liferafts to people who would prefer to poke holes in the liferafts of others. We want to save people who are acting like spoiled, entitled children and who we have no reason to believe will act any different after they’ve been saved. Just understand that afterwards we need a system that will survive this type of behavior.
“shaped”
Yeah, but they’re not charging people extra for parts they’re calling tarmac or ramps, and literally no one knows that tarmac is the material used. On the other hand, people know what a window is, and are willing to pay more to sit next to one.
Seat selection, and it seems like every other friggin extra airline fee in the US, seems to be based on how full the flight is and how much people are willing to pay for it. 90% sure they are experimenting with it to the point where that fee will change just by refreshing the page and they likely have everything from $5-$200 ‘upgrade’ fees based on what they’ve found they can get away with. Hell, I’m surprised they haven’t started auctioning the seats while waiting to board. Maybe just typing this was a bad idea.
I would argue the other way. Not all airplanes have this, and unless you fly a lot you may not come across it, and if you do happen to notice, there’s no reason to immediately assume that they would necessarily call them window seats. Lots of industries have ‘common parlance’ that many of their customers may not run into until it causes an issue, and blaming the confusion on the customer is unfair.
If anything, they should lose the case and be forced to modify their terminology to something like ‘window side’ seating or something. I mean you could easily argue that a ‘window’ seat doesn’t necessarily give you a great view because it’s over the wing or something, but to call it a window seat when it has no window is close to calling a hotel room a ‘queen bed room’ and then getting there and there’s no bed, and claiming it’s the same size as a room they would normally put a queen bed in. I mean what are you paying extra for if you pick a fake window seat? Maybe not having someone to the wall side of you, but at bare minimum they should be liable for charging extra while neglecting to mention it’s a window seat with no window.
If nothing else, if you think a ‘window seat with no window’ seems like an odd phrase, and not an obvious thing sometime should say, then it’s not being pedantic to call this out.
Funny thing is even that number would be based on all the people who can pay 20 but not 800. If it all has to be balanced by the users it would probably be an order of magnitude… Or the market would play like it logically should and it would be like 3 companies paying a million a month. But what would they do with it? Sell it at a loss for like 20 per user and hope they figure out some way to make money :)
No, not on it’s own, but it’s rarely on its own. In the US opposition to illegal immigrants and racism tracks nearly one to one.
One could imagine a country where illegal immigration itself was a distinct problem, where the society was balanced in such a way that legal immigration was at an optimal rate and additional people coming into the country had downsides that outstripped the positives, when though, for example, the immigrants were of the same culture/class/standing as the existing citizens.
The US, on the other hand, is nowhere near an optimal legal immigration rate, even though we benefit pretty significantly from both legal and illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants, for example, contribute significantly to the economy while not drawing ‘as many’ benefits away. Overwhelmingly the actual arguments against illegal immigration are grounded in cultural differences and language and, to put it simply, the desire for one class to want a reason to consider themselves better than another class by an easily recognizable yardstick.
Makes that ‘are we the baddies?’ a whole lot easier to answer.
From what I’ve seen, hail rarely harms the paint at all before the point where it will leave dents.
That’s going to be the bubble. When AI has to be able to actually pay for itself, no one is going to be able to afford it, and if you happen to be one of the companies that went all in any used AI to build your codebase and fire not devs and front line workers, you’re going to be the hardest hit. Possibly the only hope is that they saved enough from partial and didn’t pass any savings on to the customer (because of course they wouldn’t) that they can almost survive the actual unsubsidized token costs. But then you will be in direct competition with everyone else who can write a prompt with likely literally no differentiator outside of maybe name recognition in an industry.