My guess is the parent poster means residents are leaving. I know people who live in an apartment in Manhattan. The only way they can afford it is by renting out a room through AirBnB whenever they can. However, the pandemic+recession means much less demand for AirBnBs in Manhattan. On top of it, they have less work because their industry has effectively shut down from the pandemic. The result is that they can't afford Manhattan because the landlord refused to reduce rent, so they'll be moving out.
Any "Twitter is a _ propaganda channel" seems a bit odd when you consider that users choose who to follow, who to block, what topics to follow, what keywords to mute, whether or not to see targeted ads, etc. Twitter might be able to do a better job of tackling outright misinformation that spreads on the platform and they aren't always perfect when it comes to banning or suspending accounts (or failing to do so), but in general it's hard to say that a platform is just a propaganda channel for a specific ideology when it is inhabited by a diverse range of incompatible ideologies. Users tend to sort themselves into bubbles of like-minded accounts, but that is on users rather than Twitter.
That's a bad faith response. He literally said if you believe it's a honest-to-god muslim ban he will categorize you as a 'crazy leftist', not if you disagree with him about whether or not it is good or bad. It is objectively not a muslim ban as anyone from those countries was barred, and the demographics of the countries don't automatically make it a muslim ban or imply any malfeasance by the president.
"Solutions at the time included various attempts to compile Haskell to JavaScript while preserving its semantics (Fay, Haste, GHCJS), but I was interested to see how successful I could be by approaching the problem from the other side - attempting to keep the semantics of JavaScript, while enjoying the syntax and type system of a language like Haskell."
It's a good reason for the author of the language, and for anyone who's interested in designing programming languages. However, I often wonder why people in the industry promote it as a great choice for developers who are looking for a "Haskell for frontend", instead of recommending GHCJS. I do understand why Elm is recommended instead of Haskell for simplicity reasons, but PureScript is neither simpler nor (presumably, if I'm not missing something) conceptually more valuable (i.e. bringing refreshingly new ideas) than GHC Haskell.
Purescript does have algebraic effects and row polymorphism generally, which Haskell does not AFAIK (I don’t do as much Haskell as I would like so I may be wrong.)
Algebraic effects are not part of the language implementation, but there are libraries like fused-effects[1] that implement them. Row polymorphism has been proposed a few years ago [2], but as with any community effort, the timeline and possibility of the actual implementation depends on the amount of attention put into it instead of some other (probably important, too) work.
I think you might be interested in looking at multi-paradigm languages that use static/inferred typing and combine the functional and imperative paradigms. Some worth taking a look at might be OCaml, Nim, and F Sharp. Nim leans more towards Python, OCaml and F# lean more towards Haskell.
Ocaml is really good with nice tooling like merlin. Compiles to native as well. There's reasonml for people who favour js syntax but I have come to like ocaml syntax.
I don't find that surprising at all. When I looked through Upwork job postings during a period of unemployment, I saw a post from a restaurant asking for a coder. The job was to create a script to cheat in an online poll from a local magazine. The poll would be used to determine which restaurant would get an award and be highlighted by the magazine, so the restaurant had an incentive to cheat. Naturally, Upwork refused to remove the post.
That's essentially technocracy. I think some amount of technocratic decision-making is good in a government, but at the end of the day you still need that government to be informed by the needs/desires of the people (democracy, more or less). Democracy should be informed by the technocrats, not replaced by technocracy. In this case, I think voters should be listening to ecologists to understand the effects that reintroduction of wolves will have, but it's good that it's still up to the voters to decide whether to prioritize restoring the ecosystem versus making life easier for those in the agriculture industry.
"The term is used to refer to suboptimal traits that such a process may produce as a result of having to compromise between the requirements and viewpoints of the participants, particularly in the presence of poor leadership or poor technical knowledge, such as needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision"
Good question. I think they probably meant "publicly available," not "public domain." Maybe one could make an educated guess about which platforms they took data from, based on the sample outputs of their model? I can't tell, myself.
"Human 1: There is sports tournament (badminton + tennis + basketball) organized by google next week. Would you like to volunteer for these events?
Human 2: what does a volunteer do?"
later
"Human 1: Perfect! We have a meeting today at 4.30 pm. Is it fine if i add you to it?
Human 2: yes happy to help"
I'd say in this conversation Human 1 and 2 are Google employees.
Definitely sounds like Google employees chatting anonymously with each other via some service for training the AI. Been reading a few and many conversations have pointers that make it seem they are IT professionals but from different areas in some global environment. Sounds like a internal Google experiment. (Edit: last example makes it pretty clear that it's was run internally to Google)
Seems not all life is happy, wherever the samples come from.
> I used to be a Java advocate. But you know, it doesn't do a good job in the AI days. It really makes me sad
===
Human 1: Nice to meet you! Is this your first time doing something like this?
Human 2: Yes, interesting task! When did you start with the team?
Human 1: I have been with the company for over 3 years. Stick with the same team What about you?
Human 2: Great to know! I joined the project earlier in the year. I think we should sync later for lunch.
===
Human 1: Hi!
Human 2: hey, what's up?
Human 1: What do you think about human like chat bots?
Human 2: I can't wait for them to be great conversationalists!
Human 1: Yep, we seemed to have made some great progress over last few years. Do you think the positives outweigh the negatives
Human 2: are there even any negatives? what are they?
Human 1: Like impersorsination? Though it sounds far fetched :)
===
Human 1: Hi!
Human 2: Hello!
Human 1: There is sports tournament (badminton + tennis + basketball) organized by google next week. Would you like to volunteer for these events?
Human 2: what does a volunteer do?
Human 1: Volunteers have to book the place before the event, send out details of the event to participants, handle some logistics and ensure everything goes smoothly. It will be fun!
Human 2: That sounds fun, I hope I get to participate as well
Human 1: Great! Do you have any preference for any of these events?
To my knowledge, you can't talk to it. It looks like so far they've released sample conversations with Meena[0], and not much else. They've given a rough description of the model architecture and how they trained it, but good luck trying to replicate their 2.6B parameter model unless you can afford a lot of computes.
The burden of proof lies with Google, not with the scientific community. I cannot reproduce a scientific model if the data used for that model is squirreled away. Google has claimed so many times that they have cracked the nut on AI but has never allowed anyone to see real evidence. It makes me wonder if this is just a way to pump their stock.
