At some point, you need to fire your under-performing partners.

GPT-3 is over 4 years old. The writing was on the wall then. FAANG status-strivers had plenty of warning to maybe stop blowing their TC on impressing other people, and choose instead to sock something away.

Most chose not to, because living the "right" lifestyle was far more important than prudence. It is for these people that just desserts are in store.

The Social Network and its consequences have been a disaster for the software engineering race. It marked the Eternal September when this profession was inundated with greedy normies who don't care about software, but rather their wealth and status. The end of this era could not come quickly enough.

I do my best to ensure they're not using these models to do their work for them, but they are invaluable teaching tools, nonetheless.

Hopefully this will be one more nail in the coffin for the sprawling public education complex.

You later find out, SHOCKINGLY, that this rando is not actually Jensen Huang. You would, rightly, be a fair target of mocking for your S-tier gullibility.

This isn't "I fell for a well-designed phishing scam"-tier, or "SBF promised me 9% yields"-tier. This is a whole other level that is rightfully deserving of mockery.

The fact she wrecked her marriage in the process is just the cherry on top.

It takes a good DM to balance a campaign, especially for years. And I suspect most DMs are pretty bad (I'm guessing, haven't played in over a decade now).

Wouldn't any potion, including potions of healing, be considered "drug use"? Howabout excessive drinking by dwarves at a tavern in the canonical DM party formation ritual?

No, it also hurts private insurance customers( in the US ). Healthy weight people, and those who exercise are subsidizing the premiums of people who refuse to put down the fork and move occasionally, because it's illegal to discriminate premiums based on obvious risk factors like bodyfat %.

My family pays $2700/mo in premiums for a shit-tier PPO in order to support the gluttony of everyone around us. We very rarely even use the insurance.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with introversion.

Speech and debate clubs are filled with introverts. The notion of "stage fright" is completely orthogonal to introversion. You're speaking at people, with YOUR ideas, YOUR words - it's not a dialogue, with shared feelings, mood, etc, which is where introverts generally get drained.

In a very specific sense, I tend to perform reverse-age-discrimination, because a developer who was PEEKing and POKEing segmented address space with BASIC in 1984 as a kid is always going to be preferable to an aimless Zoomer who was "inspired" by Justin Timberlake saying "A million isn't cool anymore, you know what is cool? A Billion." in The Social Network.

Depression is a cluster of symptoms, for all intents and purposes. There is some evidence that SSRIs help these symptoms, but direct causal seratonin deficiency hypotheses have yet to be supported.

There's scant evidence that modern non-pharmaceutical therapeutic interventions (with the exception of niche interventions like CBT) are even effective, yet the advice "go to therapy" gets tossed around constantly as if it's Science(tm) with a capital S.

You can claim that the "depression is just a matter of perspective bro" is an ignorant take, but according to the literature, "depression is a chemical imbalance", or any other definitive "depression is X" claim is equally ignorant. We still don't really know. We're still searching.

You are effectively saying that because men are more likely to be president, CEO, Nobel Prize winner, etc, we should tell the men who are more likely to be homeless, murdered, etc, that they deserve it, and they should shut the fuck up.

You're correct that she is LEGALLY entitled to half, but that doesn't make it right. People can LEGALLY traffic slaves in Yemen, but I'm going to guess you won't be advocating for the God-given right of Akhmed to sell laborers to UAE real estate development companies?

If you're seeking coverage for lung cancer, but you chose to smoke, denied.

If you're seeking coverage for type II diabetes, but you weigh 400lbs, denied.

If you're seeking coverage for cancer because you got unlucky with a cosmic ray incident on your DNA, approved.

If you're seeking coverage for a liver transplant because you refused to put down the bottle, denied.

If you're seeking coverage for injuries from an auto accident that was not your fault, approved.

I will NEVER understand why this type of blanket policy is so controversial. Cover bad luck, do NOT cover personal choices. It will fix not only costs, but the moral hazard endemic to the current system.

Or, AT THE VERY LEAST, allow prejudicial adjustments to premiums for fatties, smokers, and alcoholics.

Google's marketing wins again, I guess.

You're not wrong, but this is a normative observation.

The question is, is this how it ought to be?

It should be obvious what happened here: Polymarket has been offering grey or black markets to users, using only IP address as the discriminator, which is very easy to work around. They've operated under the Feds' radar for quite some time, and the Feds noticed them after they started getting significant press regarding the election.

The election is the reason they got noticed, but the likely crime itself is sports, not elections.

A traditional sportsbook maintains a house vig anywhere from 5 to 15%, which is, indeed, a pretty fast path to ruin. They typically don't allow you to exit your position once you're committed.

Polymarket's sports markets, in contrast, have comparable bid/ask spreads to financial markets (maybe slightly wider), and the market is liquid such that you can sell your contract to someone else whenever you want.

Echo chambers are, by default, less combative.

As Twitter becomes more hiveminded, you can expect it to become less combative, as well.

Coca-Cola doesn't need to advertise. It's delicious, everyone knows it exists, and yet they still spend ungodly amounts of money on advertising.

KO shareholders presumably wouldn't let them get away with this if it wasn't justifiable. So there's something I'm likely missing.

A lot of traditional definitions imply some degree of consciousness or sentience.

But AGI will ultimately be defined by capabilities, not similarity to humans.

If a GPT-style LLM meets or exceeds humans at a broad category of tasks, it doesn't matter that it doesn't "understand" the tokens it operates on. Same with self-driving systems or autonomous robots. It doesn't matter if the CNN doesn't have a conception of a "person" - if it can feed the identification vector into the control network, and the control network swerves to avoid the identified object at a rate equal to humans, then that's good enough.

Capability is what matters, nothing else. And right now, we have ALL the parts to do this, we just have to scale them up, and train them better, and connect them.