The Birthday Paradox is about a group of people sharing at least one birthday between them. If it was at least 1 person out of 23 people sharing YOUR birthday then the odds would be 1 - (364/365)^23 which is around 0.06 (or 6% chance). So, yes, this scenario is a lot less likely.
I'd expect flats on cars to be correlated. People tend to buy tires in sets, so age related factors affect them all. Similarly they tend to get driven on the same roads, so are subjected to similar environmental damage.
Also, people are good at noticing patterns that don't exist, so that's a possibility too.
"We believe developers and users should have the flexibility to use our services as they see fit, so long as they comply with our usage policies. We're exploring whether we can responsibly provide the ability to generate NSFW content in age-appropriate contexts through the API and ChatGPT. We look forward to better understanding user and societal expectations of model behavior in this area."
> After disclosing the breach, 23andMe reset all customer passwords, and then required all customers to use multi-factor authentication, which was only optional before the breach.
Often on discussions about 2FA and IP address checks on HN, there is a sizable contingent that is frustrated with how ever more security impacts how they want to use the product such as people wanting to be able not to own a smartphone while still doing online banking or using their credit cards overseas.
Add in all the people who struggle to use 2FA of any kind. At my first employer, I was there when they implemented it and it basically destroyed an entire week of productivity as so many people struggled to grasp how to set up a token in the authenticator app and use the token. I would be curious to know what the stats are on how 2FA impacts use and churn of users.
I can definitely understand this argument - imagining my dad setting up even SMS-based 2FA makes me shudder. However, for information this sensitive, it would have been smarter (imo) to strongly encourage 2FA, along with tutorials on how to set it up (articles, videos), and finally to add an option to not use it with a BIG SCARY WARNING and a consent checkbox.
Ultimately, companies like this are making the choice of information safety vs profits - it’s a tale as old as the free market.
When educating the general public about the risks and limitation of LLMs, I think "hallucinating" is a useful term - it is something people can understand and it conveys the idea of LLMs being somewhat random and unreliable in their responses. I'm not sure "confabulating" is so easily understood or accessible.
Hallucinating also gets the point across that the LLM will sometimes be 100% sensible and 100% confident in its claims, while being 100% wrong in those claims.
Charging on a per-project basis puts an arbitrary distinction on how customer's should structure their work. I thought we were over having the top level folder structure be a driver for pricing?
> ... can I do these trails on my full suspension mountain bike...?
Yes. It will be a bit more work on the pedalling front vs a dedicated gravel bike, but I doubt you will encounter any bike snobbery. I have gravel trails near where I live, and you see all kinds of bikes tackling them.
