nearbuy

20 ms·

331.
by nearbuy 3y ago
Unless they're a celebrity outside of Reddit, you're not going to be able to get a list of their in-person (non-Reddit) friends.
332.
by nearbuy 3y ago
I think you're trying to be overly technical about a rule that can be seen different ways. The subreddits that went private are effectively blocking everyone from viewing them. They're not still moderating some smaller community.
333.
by nearbuy 3y ago
What information do you want to know about them, and why? Their name? Address? How many children they have? The main thing I might want to know about them is their history of actions on Reddit. That is who they are - at least as far as we&#
334.
by nearbuy 3y ago
Continuing to operate at a loss isn't a good option either though. Eventually they'd shut down and the community would lose all of Reddit.
335.
by nearbuy 3y ago
Sorry I wasn't clear, but I meant the current system is putting a big burden on app developers. This proposal does make that easier. But it doesn't change the fundamental problem that most Apollo users won't pay. Having a fre
336.
by nearbuy 3y ago
There would have been a huge uproar if they did that too. Most Apollo users don't pay. I'd be surprised if they would get even a 2% conversion rate. The other 98% of users would be angry about losing access. Reddit would still be
337.
by nearbuy 3y ago
- It's not clear why you no longer care that a technology is killing a lot of people if there's a human in the loop that you can blame. If a driver runs over your sister/son/friend, does it matter if you can blame someon
338.
by nearbuy 3y ago
1. It's the adaptive cruise control, not the FSD. 2. What would a good absolute number for that period be? Our threshold can't be zero or we'd have to give up every technology from showers/baths (~60x more deadly) to fre
339.
by nearbuy 3y ago
A lot of the responses are inverting my point by assuming I don't like modern art or that I'm making a judgement on its value. What I'm pointing out is the condescending narrow-mindedness of the comment I was responding to. T
340.
by nearbuy 3y ago
Scared? Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire? No need to invent weird reasons for this.
341.
by nearbuy 3y ago
It refuses. In general, ChatGPT doesn't have copyright books in its training data. But for something as popular as Harry Potter, it's likely plastered all over the internet enough that at least sections of it are in its training d
342.
by nearbuy 3y ago
The sources used for training these AIs are publicly available sources like Common Crawl. If having a copy in RAM is a copyright violation, then there are copyright violations occurring well before any AI ever sees it.
343.
by nearbuy 3y ago
Neuromancer is a groundbreaking and genre-defining book, but I think you're overestimating how original it was rather than incremental. Similar ideas predate it, e.g. Star Trek's holodeck was first mentioned a decade earlier (if I
344.
by nearbuy 3y ago
I find the debunkers of this myth to be overzealous, or at least confusing. You can be charged with a crime if you knowingly, falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theater and someone gets hurt as a result. The case you linked is not
345.
by nearbuy 3y ago
I agree with all of that. I guess I interpreted your first response as disagreeing with my comment, when you were actually just bringing up a different topic.
346.
by nearbuy 3y ago
> Those weren't requirements. Then it seems we don't disagree on anything concrete. You're just using a different rating system than me when I judge it as impressive compared to what an average person would produce in 60 s
347.
by nearbuy 3y ago
> I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better Why? > I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something It only takes 60 seconds to test that on yourself. It's not that
348.
by nearbuy 3y ago
I wasn't clear on how was using "better". Your example is better in that it fulfills the requirement, but I don't think it's as impressive as ChatGPT's answer. How long would it take to make a sentence that is
349.
by nearbuy 3y ago
Still fairly impressive. Probably better than most people could do if given 60 seconds, but probably worse than most people if given 10 minutes.
350.
by nearbuy 3y ago
ChatGPT with GPT-4 seems to get this right: In Java, strings are internally represented by an instance of the `String` class, which is an immutable class that means once created, a `String` object cannot be changed. The `String` class store
351.
by nearbuy 3y ago
I've read before that the most common amount of time for someone to be homeless is one day. Temporary homelessness is comparatively common. If they are grouping the temporary homeless with the chronically homeless, that would totally i
352.
by nearbuy 3y ago
That's not what IPX8 means. You're thinking of IP08.
353.
by nearbuy 3y ago
Intel voluntarily recalled the processors. The cost was about equivalent of $800M today, which is quite large, but nowhere near the cost of replacing every Meltdown-susceptible CPU. The FDIV recall probably didn't have any benefit for
354.
by nearbuy 3y ago
> Right now, that argument seems to be simultaneously "It's critical enough for Microsoft to explicitly deny running Windows 11 on it" and "It's not critical enough that Intel and AMD should do something about it
355.
by nearbuy 3y ago
You're going to have to go back to the 1990s if you want to undo the "risky design technique" of speculative execution. You're ignoring half the equation too here. There are benefits to having faster and more efficient c
356.
by nearbuy 3y ago
"Defective" seems harsh here in that every product will always have issues of this degree no matter how hard one tries to make a perfect product. We're talking about a very subtle side channel attack. I promise you every comp
357.
by nearbuy 4y ago
I agree generally with what you're saying. I was arguing against people who seem to have concluded LLMs can't do any reasoning because they're "just generating text based on probabilities". I've seen people exp
358.
by nearbuy 4y ago
I think you misunderstood. I'm not making any claim there. I'm just defining what Turing-complete means for those who don't already know.
359.
by nearbuy 4y ago
Being able to sort a large list like that is really impressive given how ChatGPT works. I wonder if it's seen enough sorted lists of capitals in its training data to help it. ChatGPT doesn't have any internal working memory. It ca
360.
by nearbuy 4y ago
People keep repeating that LLMs are "just generating text based on probabilities". That statement doesn't mean anything. I think people who say this are imagining LLMs work something like a statistical model. Maybe it's

More ›