dkjaudyeqooe

7 ms·

31.
OpenAI Abandons Planned For-Profit Conversion(wsj.com)
9 points by dkjaudyeqooe 1y ago|0 comments
32.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Mass firing is such a destructive process, you lose good people who were hard to source in the first place and it destroys moral and trust. If you're broadly firing people, you fucked up, it's not some magical skill, it means you
33.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
There's no methodology at work, it's just indiscriminate firings to cull as many people as possible. This is clear from other other departments where they fired everyone they could. "Coding error" is just a modern versio
34.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.
35.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
I agree, but when that is abused because of a minorities' preference, then it's bad. That's what's happening here.
36.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
He does, but Trump knows he can ignore the law without consequences (besides maybe being reversed) so he ignores. Other presidents have done the same on occasion but no where near the scale that Trump has done.
37.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
This is all pointless since TikTok's parent has said it won't sell and is very likely being menaced by the PRC in this respect.
38.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
> So does subsidizing US farmers because we want to overproduce food to ensure supply stability. The US already does this, I'm talking about payments for losses due to tariffs.
39.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Shouldn't that be directed to those with an agenda who and are flagging certain posts? Those of us who complain about this highly targeted flagging just want to avoid censorship. I can't see how we need to reflect on this.
40.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
I think most people are not thinking on purpose, and just accepting the dogma of one side or the other.
41.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
He's right, you're just repeating your unsupported statement in response. You don't seem to have an argument to reply with.
42.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
It's also good for Canada because the local industry will be forced to compete with China with the consumer benefiting.
43.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
> the US will continue to deindustrialize This is a fiction. The US manufactures more than it ever did, just not the same products and with less staff. The US is second only to China. This is a normal process of seeking out better market
44.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Besides the time and cost to do that, which may make it uneconomic, there is also the fact that their inputs would be subject to tariffs in the US and exports to other countries from the US would be subject to retaliatory tariffs. Your poin
45.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
I'm not allowed to say "you're missing the point" because it's against HN rules, but maybe don't focus on this particular item so much? It illustrates the dynamics of strictures on global trade with a simple it
46.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
This article illustrates how economically destructive these tariffs are for all involved. Of course those who are politically favored, such as US farmers, will get a handout, everyone else gets to pound sand. I think a US recession is a giv
47.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Yes, pretty framesless windows is surely a justification forsuch a deathtrap.
48.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
I never went to driving school but isn't it obvious to both brake and steer away from the obstacle? Not that long ago I had some idiot driving the wrong direction, in my lane, and speeding, and was about to have a head on at about 200
49.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Or just ban non-mechanical interior releases? Whats the justification for electronic releases? My cheap car has electronic locks on all doors but the mechanical interior releases defeat them (but not on the rear doors). A neat feature I not
50.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Aren't we beyond the point where makers of these systems should be required to prominently state that these are level 2 driving systems? Playing word games ("Full Self Driving"!) is arguably killing people.
51.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
I've been saying that for some time, but you can cash in on the hype. All you need to do is convince the credulous and greedy.
52.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
That's why he had to "sell" X, he was facing margin calls on this Tesla stock and would have been forced to sell stock.
53.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
> Tesla stock buyers are buying it for future promise Indeed, they're buying into Musk's deep vaporware product line. I think the robots really took the cake. He wasn't even trying anymore.
54.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
You're missing the point. Imitation is the artistic act in question. The act of "creation". The question is what does the imitation bring to the viewer's experience of it? "Starry Night" brings a lot. A photoco
55.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Put more simply, he's saying art is the product of, and the expression of, human emotion and experience. Suffering just happens to be a common element of that, but it's not essential. Maybe because it most commonly produces good o
56.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
This is hilarious. Can we call it "AI washing"? He's taking his "set billions on fire" mistake and using it to extract money out of his AI vaporware venture. Brilliant, I guess.
57.
The Real Story of Sam Altman’s Firing From OpenAI(wsj.com)
9 points by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago|0 comments
58.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Also Xanthorrhoea which is adapted to fire but doesn't require it.
59.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
Sequential scans are terribly underrated given today's architectures. If the datum is small and it's like 1000 elements max it's going to be hard to beat a simple scan of an array for speed and memory efficiency. But trees et
60.
by dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
AI sludge in, AI sludge out. It's just another version of someone who is relativity incompetent but can produce something vaguely convincing.

More ›