DecaDeciHuman
No bio...
User ID: 3518
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
This is one of the reasons why you are seeing more preorder exclusive DLC.
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
Anacdata: the people I know that first played BG1 on launch either didn't buy BG3 or gave up on it.
BG 3 appears to have - successfully - shifted its target audience.
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
Things that can't be moved outside the country, aren't.
...meaning that if wages drop within the country, anything that can't be moved outside the country's effective price rises. When this includes essentials...
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
"does not allow" is not the same thing as "no-one is doing it".
There are still external archives & scrapers. All the progressive lockdowns have done is get rid of the well-behaved ones.
AI, if anything, is making this worse, as it is showing that even illegitimately-obtained data has value.
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
Ah sorry, let me rephrase to clarify:
Beware that this tends to exclude any point that is sufficiently complex that getting into it [the point] cannot be simplified to a paragraph without presupposing the audience is already an expert in the topic.
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
The table is helpful, thank you.
Consider the following case:
- I weakly believe ABC.
- I strongly believe ABC implies DEF.
- I weakly believe ~ABC implies DEF.
Under this example:
- Overall I believe {ABC, DEF}, so I am Alice.
- I weakly disbelieve Dave (he disbelieves ABC, but the rest of his logic is sound based on the different premise)
- I moderately disbelieve Bob (he disbelieves ABC, and also disbelieves that ~ABC implies DEF).
- I strongly disbelieve Carol (she disbelieves ABC implies DEF!)
This would result in precisely the order of preference you are puzzled by, no?
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
My suspicion here is the same as my general answer below:
There is some other important issue or group of issues here that you are missing in which "small government conservative" aligns more closely to "big government social progressive" than "small government social progressive". Likely one where the matter is not publicly debatable for one reason or another. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the 'communist' backlash. Your final assertion there is precisely the sort of thing that can be seen as falling into that category...
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
I had a minor kerfuffle on a major bank transaction due to my signature not matching. Wasn't the end of the world, but did result in some hassle.
(That was also the day I found out my signature is notably different when writing with a felt-tipped pen.)
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
It can be both.
Unfortunately the sort of hard data to show correlation is precisely the sort of thing that is most likely to be affected by political suppression.
Anecdotally: I've met people in all four categories of that particular powerset.
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
The borrow checker paradigm is basically a half-baked bastardization of linear types
The types aren't even linear is the worst part.
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
There is a reason why functional languages are created- usually an obsession with safety and mathematical purity over all else;
With the seemingly baffling exception of assuming infinite memory.
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
Probably for the same reason Java did.
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
I've worked in probably over a dozen codebases across 20 years and never once organically encountered anyone using a union.
I use (and organically run across) unions fairly frequently. That being said, embedded codebases are rather niche.
In embedded you're not typically concerned too much about portability between completely different architectures or compilers anyway, meaning you can (relatively) safely rely on things like "the compiler will be sane and predictable about its rules for padding bytes".
Main usecases are:
- Describing hardware registers as both bits and an 'all' with a minimal of boilerplate and zero runtime cost. (Union of a bitfield describing the fields of the register with an e.g. u32)
- Describing hardware registers that legitimately have multiple different interpretations depending on context. ("Isn't this just a tagged union?" Arguably yes, but crucially it is one where you do not have control over where the tag lives, or indeed if the tag exists in memory at all as opposed to being e.g. implicit in control flow.)
- Manually-tagged tagged unions to save memory.
- Task-based hardware accelerators with multiple task formats.
- Manually-tagged tagged unions for user data in fixed-length tasks passed to hardware accelerators.
- Working around braindead compiler pessimisations by emulating a C++-style bitcast in . (See above re: lack of portability.)
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
Why would he ever say these things under his real name?
Did he say those things when the account was under his real name? Or did he say them after the account had been renamed?
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
Rock salt rounds can absolutely penetrate exposed skin, and halite has worse material properties than ice.
(this says nothing about accuracy)
DecaDeciHuman
5mo ago
This assumes that the workers who were producing that thing were paid more than average and get a new job paying less than average (or stay unemployed).
Either the average wage in the country drops or unemployment rises, or both. Look at it this way: the immediate total monetary flow of wages in the country drops by the amount that was moved outside the country.
Of course, you can argue for countering second-order effects in the longer term... but this gets back to the original point that you appeared to be attempting to refute, which is "outsourcing is an it-depends not an obvious win". Arguing for countering second-order effects against a first-order loss is decidedly still in the category of "it depends" not "an obvious win".
This seems fine in many cases. Often the products made outside of the country are just as good (lumber) or even better (cars) as those made in the country. I don't view this as impoverishment.
This would be true if it was feasible to move everything outside the country. However, there are many critical things that aren't. (As a topical example: you can't move the landscaping work required for building a house in the middle of a country outside said country, for hopefully obvious reasons.)
Not the OP; I share similar reactions. I am not the most articulate; let me attempt to expand these a little.
arbitrary terminal preference.
Your 'arbitrary terminal preference' is my '(relational) tacit knowledge'.
the end of my interest in a thread
The other person a. has signaled that they do not find the thread in question important enough to spend their time on b. has signaled that the preferences and opinions expressed in the thread are not their own.
Otherwise, long form content - the hallmark of much of the best content here - is immediately suspicious, and I am likely to skip it.
Current LLMs tend to write long-form responses unless explicitly prompted otherwise, and LLM content is often used to 'pad' a short comment into a longer-form one. This results in P(LLM | longform) >> P(LLM | shortform). There are, of course, exceptions.
Ditto, the amount of my time wasted trying to help someone if I realize 90% through a shortform comment it's LLM-generated is much less than if I realize 90% of the way through a longform comment it's LLM-generated.
and a sharp drop in my respect for the user
P(arbitrary comment from user uses a LLM | some comment from user visibly used a LLM) >> P(arbitrary comment from user uses a LLM | no comments from user visibly used a LLM).
Of course, then the followup question becomes "what do I have against LLM content". A few of the components:
The big LLM-as-a-services are a very attractive target for propaganda and censorship. (Of course, so are local models - though a local model can be assumed to remain identical tomorrow as today, and user Y as user X.) We already are seeing the first stirrings of this; everything so far has been fairly blatent whereas I am far more concerned about more subtle forms thereof.
Beware Gell-Mann Amnesia. I test (locally, because test set contamination) LLMs fairly often on questions in my actual field of expertise (which will go unnamed here) and they categorically write well-articulated responses that get the superficial parts correct while spouting dangerous utter nonsense for anything deeper. Unfortunately, over time the threshold of where they start spouting nonsense gets deeper, but does not disappear. I worry that at some point that threshold will overtake my level of expertise and I will be no longer able to pinpoint the nonsense.
I am not here to get one particular piece of information in the most efficient manner possible. I am here to test my views for anything I've missed, and to be exposed to a wider variety of views, and to help others when they have missed implications of views, and to be socialish. LLM-generated content misses the mark on all of these. If ten people read and respond to me they have a far wider range of tests of my views than if they all run my post through a single LLM. If ten people read and respond to me they have a far wider variety of outlooks than if they all run my post through a single LLM. If I spend time reading a partially-incorrect answer to be able to respond to it to help someone and I discover after-the-fact that it was LLM-generated, I have wasted time without helping the person I thought I was helping.
DecaDeciHuman
6mo ago
the problem with most AI posts isn't that they're AI, it's that they're bad
My opinion is otherwise.
The problem with 'good' LLM-generated posts is that they introduce an effort asymmetry. They make it possible for an individual to astroturf or gish gallop to a hitherto-unseen level.
In the absence of LLMs a longpost represents a certain minimum bar of 'this person cared enough about this subject to spend the time to write this'. LLMs completely upend this.
DecaDeciHuman
6mo ago
Beware that this tends to exclude any point that is sufficiently complex that it cannot be simplified to a paragraph without presupposing the audience is already an expert in the topic.
This may be acceptable fallout, but is still worth explicitly noting.
DecaDeciHuman
6mo ago
(Nit: you likely meant 'affecting' not 'effecting' in this context.)
DecaDeciHuman
6mo ago
Ah, the wonders of HTML character entities. Thank you!
~test~
`~test~` ~test~ `\~test\~` \~test\~ `/~test/~` /~test/~ `~~test~~` ~~test~~ `~~~test~~~ ` ~~~test~~~ `~~~~test~~~~ ` ~~~~test~~~~
Huh. Doesn't work in the comment preview, but does in the final comment.
Also I really don't trust that comment-parsing code you linked.
DecaDeciHuman
6mo ago
Thank you!
DecaDeciHuman
6mo ago
This is interesting, but besides my point. As we seem to be talking past each other, let me back up a step here and outline the scenario in question:
- Status quo. Everything is on the edge of affordability, give or take.
- Some production is moved out of the country, to a place where cost of labor is lower.
- Average wages inside the country drop.
- (As a sidenote: people inside the country can no longer afford country-made products, and so shift their purchasing to cheaper imports. CPI goes up here, as I mentioned, as country-made products are price-weighted out of the basket.)
- Overall real wages stay the same or even drop within the country - though this is most visible for that which cannot easily be produced elsewhere.
It also doesn't capture the 40% (estimate based on googling) of cars that aren't financed at all.
I am aware. As I said, I couldn't find a raw 'median cost of a car sale'. I'd love for you to point me at better numbers for this series.
DecaDeciHuman
6mo ago
Unfortunately:
- https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DoKf. Number of weeks of the median US wage to afford a median US house has gone up by, what, 60%, since the 80s.
- https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DoL3. Number of weeks of the median US wage to afford the mean cost of ground beef (wish I could find median) was lowest in ~1999 and has since risen by, what, 80%?
- https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DoMe. Number of weeks of the median US wage to afford the mean car loan. Indirectly, unfortunately, so take it with a bit of a grain of salt. I couldn't find a raw 'median cost of a car sale'. Still does nicely show the 2008-2009 spike and return to status quo in about 2012 or so, and then COVID weirdness that hasn't come back down to the prior level since.
CPI's approach to dynamic price-weighting means that if a good becomes unaffordable it ends up downweighted. (As one example: from 2011 to 2023 CPI-U's College tuition and fees weighting dropped from 1.695 to 1.275, even as the relevant CPI went up from 692 to 928.)
There are situations where this behavior is appropriate and useful; this is not one of them.
Is this obvious?
More options
Context Copy link