Well, not to worry. The Biden Admin FTC and the EU ensured this outcome in the interest of making sure consumer rights are protected. Therefore, consumer rights must be better protected in this scenario.
Another success for EU antitrust law. By blocking an acquisition, they have allowed a bankruptcy purchase by a Chinese firm so that the market is between a few Chinese firms.
Fire Departments are the number one rent-seekers in the US so this is more like a cockroach being parasitized by a fungus. FARS regulations, in particular, are obvious crony capitalism. Elevator standards are less so, but still suspicious.
Is it 2018? Are you guys going to repost the MySQL DB as a queue story again? Perhaps an announcement that you’re migrating to Java 9 and what you learned about generics?
The point of the studies was to establish a reason for people to use recreational drugs. Americans can’t be satisfied with “they’re fun” so people need to come up with a medical reason for it because “they’re suffering” is a get out of jail free card.
Everything is obviously fabricated. You think the snail darter is real? But the scientific consensus…
By the same standard, humans would never have started consuming alcohol, and it should be strictly forbidden. But of course we have tried that, and it's not very effective, but for some reason they seem to think it can work with something that is even easier to handle.
Seems like a great feature. What I’d really like is a “recap for me till here” for books I started reading then stopped for whatever reason. I was reading Unsong for a bit (great book, very enjoyable) and then lately the baby has wanted a lot more attention so I didn’t get much reading done. I just want to catch up quick so I can continue.
LLMs are great for this, for the plot and character questions, etc.
Authors have nothing to do with it. It’s my device, my book that I bought. It would be like if YouTube banned a screen reader. These are at two different levels of the stack.
It's not that direct a counterexample. We have no idea what underlying data from the Fallout show they gave to the model to summarize. Surely it wasn't the scripts of the episodes. The nature of the error makes me think it might have been given stills of the show to analyze visually. In this case we know it is the text of the book.
Amazon made a video with AI summarizing their own show, and got it broadly wrong. Why would we expect their book analysis to be dramatically better - especially as far fewer human eyes are presumably on the summaries of some random book that sold 500 copies than official marketing pushes for the Fallout show.
For the reason I gave in my answer: it would be answering based on the text of the book. I don't expect it to be particularly great regardless because these features always use cheap models.
I’ve found the complete opposite as recently as last week. When I ask a deep question about a book it will hallucinate whole paragraphs of bogus justification and even invent characters
The LLM just working on its own is just generative intelligence. You have to ground it if you want the real stuff. The Kindle app has the text of the book and I'd want it to put that in the LLM context.
When there is an effort to “elevate people of type X” you have to suspect that some large number of those “elevations” are fraudulent rewriting of history. I immediately ignore the whole lot.
Peek just a little bit behind the curtain and it always turns out the controversy is fake.
Pretty much the normal version of history has been accurate for a while.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, you're right--I've seen lots of social media memes that basically say stuff like, "Einstein was an idiot, it was his wife that did all the work!" when that's patently a false statement.
But I also know that a lot of that sort of thing DID happen. Women, marginalized groups, etc., were written out of history on a regular basis.
The problem is, the issue requires nuance and intellectually honest discussion. And that doesn't exist when you're trying to create the next biggest clickbait article or meme.
I'm not sure at what point it must have way overcorrected. Most if not every single thing I was taught in school that a lot members of this group did/invented turned out to be an exaggeration or outright lie, I came to find out later.
Which is a shame, because most of their stories are interesting in their own right to have been properly explained. Now, instead of lifting anyone up, we're doing some weird dance of fighting back and forth about who is lying(and usually, the answer is both sides).
> Most if not every single thing I was taught in school that a lot members of this group did/invented turned out to be an exaggeration or outright lie, I came to find out later.
I think this (unfortunately common) impression comes from a misunderstanding of how scientific work actually happens. No one is working independently in their own labs and doing all of the work without help from anyone else, ultimately culminating in a Eureka! All of this work is collaborative, and recognition of individuals who had a particularly compelling insight or experimental result in this collaborative process is not a dismissal or denigration of anyone else who may have contributed.
> Women, marginalized groups, etc., were written out of history on a regular basis.
Written out? Or just not written in? There's a big difference. Almost everyone isn't written into history. But nobody cares about the white men who aren't written in because the people who are were also white men.
It's quite likely the next Einstein will be a man. But that doesn't mean that being a man means you're likely to be the next Einstein.
The problem is we are all obsessed with finding the very best people in each category whether it be science, sports, arts etc. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, it's just what we're like. If you were going to read a memoir would you pick Einstein, or the janitor who cleaned his office?
It just so happens that many of these "top spots" will be occupied by men, for one reason or another. I can see that it sucks if there are no role models that you can relate to. It must seem like boys have all this potential and that's not fair. But 99% of them won't succeed, and that sucks too. The grass is always greener on the other side.
> Written out? Or just not written in? There's a big difference. Almost everyone isn't written into history. But nobody cares about the white men who aren't written in because the people who are were also white men.
I mean, not too long ago there was a very popular movement online about celebrating white man Nikola Tesla, who was seen as not being given his fair place in history for his discoveries. People love a perceived underdog.
Come on... It's 2025. If this were true you don't think by now at least one woman would have published her work under a man's name just to prove a point?
It takes a certain type of brain to be an Einstein. That type of brain is extremely rare in any part of the population, but it's exceedingly rare for women. It's not better or worse, it's just different. It's like red paint or blue paint. You don't have to rank one higher than the other, but you clearly do. Look inside yourself and ask why. If you want to make a difference you'd find a way for everyone to feel great about themselves rather than assume malice.
Completely false. You will never find evidence for this claim because it's a lie.
100 percent of the time when someone writes this lie, they're covering up for their own intellectual shortcomings. You're smart enough to realize that your mind doesn't measure up. But unfortunately, you're not smart enough to learn that you are the one holding back your own intellectual abilities.
With time, I hope you grow into a more serious person.
> When there is an effort to “elevate people of type X” you have to suspect that some large number of those “elevations” are fraudulent rewriting of history. I immediately ignore the whole lot.
A significant part of all credit in the world is assigned fraudulently, it is just a fact. It is because with credit comes prestige and wealth, etc. So humans generally seek it out and many lie about it.
I'm very happy that this view is getting some broader attention. In the abstract, it's no different than it's always been: history is written by the victors. The particulars are going to be era-specific, as you've noted. _Any_ ideology is going to have its blind spots and its convenient lies.
This comment is not going to age well. This is same attitude that everyone has had since recorded history. And they are regularly proven wrong. By either intention or omission history is rarely balanced and accurate.
I think knowingly or unknowingly this person just summed it up - there was an effort(last 2-3 centuries) to elevate people of just one type (let's say X) and a lot of those were just fraudulent and now the effort is to elevate these other types (rest of the types minus type X) and a lot of these might also be fraudulent. So I think deliberately elevating a type leads to some fraudulence. It doesn't mean we should judge the types but that we should be careful which we should be anyway.
reply