There are really two distinct homelessness problems:
1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible.
2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive.
When laypeople talk about “homelessness”, they typically mean 2 as it’s more visible and disruptive to them.
There’s obviously a huge difference between a scam and a violent attack. The person being scammed doesn’t ever lose their agency and willingly participates. That’s very different from a knife attack, where the victim would leave at every moment if possible.
This all ultimately boils down to "the attacks that I believe I'm immune to are okay, the attacks that I'm not immune to are not okay."
The victim in your knife attack had the opportunity to leave by never going to the grocery store. The fact they couldn't foresee that attack is solely because they lacked the information or cognitive ability to foresee it, just like an 80 IQ gambler with a Draftkings account lacks the information/cognitive ability to foresee the attack on him.
So many people walk around with the implicit ethical system that 80 IQers don't deserve to have a decent life in the modern world. That is obviously despicable once it's stated explicitly.
No, your argument is basically “all bad things are equivalent to knife attacks.” Look, I’m not saying deception and scamming are “ok”, I’m just saying comparing them to knife attacks is stupid.
True, but I think the main issue is that neither is beneficial to society, genetically or otherwise. The main purpose of the knife attack analogy is to demonstrate that protecting against that involves skills that are useless if we can just eliminate the threat in the first place
Many of us experience that knife attacks are not part of life, but perhaps we take for granted the existence of scammers?
Granted, being able to protect against one self against a scam may include talents that carry over to other useful aspects of society building, but same with being able to fight off knife attacks
And again the point is that, 1: those aren't the only beneficial aspects to society. someone without those talents may be brilliant in other ways, thus evolutionary pressure on that is not helpful. And even if someone isn't brilliant in other ways, we are all still valuable. Just ask a parent who raises a highly disabled kid, they will know this far more deeply than you or I do
Scammers target people who can be easily manipulated so that they can mostly remove targets’ agency. The victim doesn’t know that it’s a scam, so why would they run?
The issue isn’t performing the specific addition. Rather, you’re asking o1 to take n-bits of data and combine them according to some set of rules. Isn’t that what these models are supposed to excel at, following instructions? Binary addition is interesting because the memorization space grows at 2^n, which is impossible to memorize for moderate values of n.
I meant this in the general case, not specifically binary addition. Also, returning an token by ChatGPT is technically an O(1) operation, so the same principle applies. Returning a computation answer of O(n_required_tokens) cannot be delivered in O(1) time without some sort of caching.
I think OPs general point, although maybe not what they stated is correct: it’s easy to write GC’d code. It’s “easy” to write code with manual memory management. It’s “easy” to write RC code. But it’s hard to write borrow checker code. And that will probably limit adoption, even though the goals of Rust are good.
It really depends on what you mean by “complex UI.” In you mean a UI that needs to handle real-time user input, then it is extremely difficult to get React to be performant once the complexity reaches a certain scale.
As an illustration, try to make a website that has 1000 drag-and-drop elements that you can drag around the page. Getting it to render at 60-120 fps is hard and fragile.
"As an illustration, try to make a website that has 1000 drag-and-drop elements that you can drag around the page. Getting it to render at 60-120 fps is hard and fragile."
Glad I always avoided react then, despite all the hype.
Childcare is very personal, especially for those with means to access a wide variety of childcare options. US tech companies don’t offer childcare because it’s not something desired by the employees. There are a few reasons for this:
1. Everyone wants the “best” for their kids. When I think of the “best” childcare, I imagine some specialized program with excellent caregivers and a multitude of enrichment opportunities. I don’t think of a company-run daycare.
2. Many people don’t live near work. You want your kids’ friends to live nearby.
3. You want to provide stability for your kids. Tying daycare to your job is antithetical to that goal.
This is not true in most cases . First, it is logically impossible for everyone to get the ‘best’ thing. Secondly, how many people remember their daycare friends? And people change jobs anyway. Third, how offered something free tied you up? Why providing you free commute credit not tying you up ?
> First, it is logically impossible for everyone to get the ‘best’ thing.
You’re assuming two things:
1. The “best” thing is scarce.
2. Everyone agrees on what the “best” thing is.
People want to send their kids to the best place within the framework of their own opinions on what “best” is. Just because two people work for company X doesn’t mean they’re likely to agree on what a good daycare is.
> Secondly, how many people remember their daycare friends?
How is that relevant? When your kid wants a playdate, you want their friends to be nearby to facilitate that.
Nothing is free means that the daycare provided by a company isn’t free. It costs the company money and can be considered part of your compensation. It’s almost certainly more efficient and more desirable for the company to give you money to procure your own.
1. The “temporarily unhoused”. These are people who have fallen on hard times and need temporary assistance to get back on their feet. These people live out of their cars and are largely invisible.
2. The chronically homeless. These are drug users who infest public spaces and are highly visible and disruptive.
When laypeople talk about “homelessness”, they typically mean 2 as it’s more visible and disruptive to them.
reply