I’m skeptical. There is a lot wiggle room in “no specific training”. Could just mean the didn’t fine tune the model for any of tests. Their training data probably included many past LSAT exams and certainly included many instances of people discussing how to solve LSAT problems.
Yes such useful and constructive new ways organize Ponzi schemes. Andreessen is a member of the laptop class himself, just one of the most grating ones. Seems to think telling other people to build makes him a builder. YIMBY in his tweets, NIMBY in his streets.
Depends on how that labor is valued. Just because a project creates jobs with export value in country doesn’t mean that project is a net benefit for the people of that country. A project like a waste reprocessing facility might create exportable labor for the country that hosts it, while simultaneously harming the health or people who work in the facility and those who live around it. Does it generally make for a just system if rich countries are allowed place facilities they don’t want in poor ones?
I think the answer depends on how well labor in those countries is rewarded for working at such facilities. So I certainly hope countries that are considering hosting those projects drive a hard bargain on price, starting by acknowledging that what they are giving up is real. The land use is a real concern, yes even in the desert.
This is not a waste processing plant though. Even waste processing can be lucrative, Sweden buys trash to burn from neighboring countries. How can people say with a straight face that land use in the Sahara is a concern is beyond me. I guess global warming really is over-hyped, if we got to worry about land use in Sahara.
What makes it an opinion? If I were to say that the Nazi party in Germany peddled in hatred and demonization of already-marginalized groups would you say that is an opinion? Just because a statement pertains to political groups doesn't make it a mere opinion.
Nazi Germany, really? Equating AI bias against the groups pointed out in the article to theoretical AI bias against Nazi Germany is a political opinion, yes.
Hmm? No equating happening in my comment. The point was that just because statement is about a political group doesn't mean it's a only an opinion. Mentioning Nazi Germany is just using an extreme example to make clear that statements about political groups aren't inherently mere opinions.
Yeah, insofar as there are distinct political philosophies with defining features like fascism, democracy, nationalism, oligarchy, et. al., then it is entirely possible to accurately call manifestations of those philosophies by their names and have it be an expression of fact. This is basic ontology.
We have opinions about these philosophies but the philosophies exist independently of our opinions. And to have a rational conversation we sometimes have to use terms that may provoke strong reactions. If we can't look past our strong reaction and explain why the category doesn't apply then there's no way to make sense of each other's worldview.
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck or we cannot have a rational conversation about the duck. We can dispute whether it quacks or walks but disputing whether it's a duck in light of evidence of its duckness is irrational.
It's probably an opinion because it's not provably true. There is no mainstream Nazi party today so I don't understand how your example is meaningful or relevant.
Anyways, if you're in the U.S., I assume you're referring to the Democrat party as the party of demonization? They are the party whose members are most likely to be involved in demonization of other groups. Here's some examples:
Definitely seems like more of reddit comment than a HN one. I had a laugh though so thanks and here's to more laughs until dang shows up and takes all the fun out of HN for umpteenth time.
That's not apocalypse, though. That's just the normal economic cycle.
If a company actually thought the apocalypse was coming, why would they buy back stock? The stock's going to be worthless, and so is the company. Use the cash to buy something that will be worth something in the apocalypse (food, bomb shelters, guns, maybe gold). If you actually believe the apocalypse is coming, buying corporate stock is a stupid response.
So I don't believe your claim that stock buybacks indicate that corporations know the apocalypse is coming. Rough economic times, sure. Apocalypse, no.
