mgraczyk

11 ms·

121.
by mgraczyk 11mo ago
No I agree with that point in the article. The people I meet who complain are not standing in line at the food bank
122.
by mgraczyk 11mo ago
Why is it that the 50 year old Pakistani man who just moved here and doesn't speak English seems to be doing so much better than "poor" Americans who complain online all the time. Or the 23 year old dishwasher from Mexico who
123.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
"The FBI stated it found no evidence of "enemy hunting" of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully unders
124.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Sounds unironically great, this way only startups that have nobody to fire will grow let GM figure out how to file the paperwork and another company can replace it
125.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Yes, pretty much no matter how you measure it
126.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Good thing we didn't do this, considering the core thesis ended up being completely wrong
127.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Semantic html is a novice trap, just do the thing that works and that browsers expect (aria-live) It's fun to play around with things like this, but if you're a developer you have a responsibility to build things that work for you
128.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
That's completely wrong, and nobody who has ever worked on a subscription business would believe that. Talk to somebody who works at Netflix or Spotify The reason is that retention is much, much more important than reducing usage cost
129.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
This is also a misunderstanding. Not how it works economically. You do not pay for Instagram with your personal data. The data is elsewhere, not on Instagram. For example with your local retailer or credit card company. Instagram pays for d
130.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
The problem here is that the proclamation says otherwise. It doesn't include any exception for current holders Trump has the legal authority to block anyone from entering for essentially any reason (see Trump v Hawaii) So it doesn&#x27
131.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
It's easier for one company to digitize and sell/share than for many companies to do it individually. Western companies will be fine but sharing data in ways that would be illegal in the US does help other companies outside the US
132.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
It's a tiny amount of data relatively speaking. Much more expensive per token than almost any data source imaginable
133.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Based on the problems described in the article, I would guess this system is not using AI in the literal sense. It sounds like a rule based system with bad rules, where AI may possibly be used to navigate the decision tree.
134.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Yes they do mean two different things in this context. It's completely unambiguous and universally understood by people who work on efficiency.
135.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Sorry but your explanation is not self consistent. It works for "2x more" but not "2x larger". Those are two different words that mean two different things
136.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
It means the same size, you wouldn't say that
137.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
2x smaller is 50%, 3x smaller is 33%, etc It's an extremely common phrase
138.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Yes it's definitely possible, but very rare and as you pointed out (especially in the confederacy's case) it usually harms the exporter much more than it helps. I'd say that in any case of a serious Canadian export embargo, i
139.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
The US admin is very clearly pushing us in the opposite direction. You believe that Trump's actions make war with Canada less likely? What's the mechanistic explanation?
140.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Because everyone dies. If everyone lived to be 1000 you'd be wrong to worry about dying in 100 years
141.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
What does that mean? No they aren't? When is the last time cartels attacked the American military?
142.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
One sided trade deals in which they continue exporting to us and import less There is plenty of risk that our neighbors stop importing and almost no risk they stop exporting
143.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Yes, that's right. This has been the case for over 200 years so I think it's reasonable it will continue to be true for at least another 100
144.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Not against our neighbors
145.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
That's only the case if you include Canada and Australia, which were functionally independent at that point. I'm not claiming nobody will invade France or Taiwan in the next 100 years, I'm claiming that the US is special. We
146.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
No, based on the history of conflict we can say that the more time that passes with neighbors not invading one another, the less likely they will in the future
147.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
You're off by about 150 years. 100 years ago was 1925, the British has already largely collapsed losing the US, Canada, Australia. 100 years isn't forever but it's a long time And we haven't had any serious threats from
148.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
You are arguing my point. Canada may stop importing from us but will never stop exporting. There are no incentives for that and never will be. We import tons of food and energy from them and have no alternative on time scales or 10 years If
149.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Okay so make a prediction. What is the probability that Canada or Mexico will declare war on the United States in the next 100 years?
150.
by mgraczyk 1y ago
Yes I understand the reasoning, it's just obviously wrong. This doesn't happen and hasn't happened in hundreds of years. This is not why people get invaded, otherwise Switzerland would have been invaded many times over the la

More ›