Nope, and a human might not respond with "drive". They would want to know why you are asking the question in the first place, since the question implies something hasn't been specified or that you have some motivation beyond a legitimate answer to your question (in this case, it was tricking an LLM).

Why the LLM doesn't respond "drive..?" I can't say for sure, but maybe it's been trained to be polite.

Then use it? Mandate reaction speed tests or other driving mechanics competency evaluation (not road sign comprehension) and watch insurance margins explode.

The driver in my example did poorly and scored top marks in the heuristic.

One thing HPDE taught me is that most people under brake in dangerous situations because they simply don't know the limit of their vehicle nor the sensitivity range of the brake pedal.

The hard braking heuristic makes sense when estimating risk of road segments, but not as a proxy for driver competence.

What is it with mice and OSes?

Windows is the only OS I can seem to configure to get low latency, high accuracy, linear movement with, and it's not for lack of effort.

I struggled for several years to do SWE work on a Mac and no 3rd party program could get it working the way it does on Windows. I tried Linear Mouse and many others. I eventually gave up, went against the prevailing (90%) culture where I work, and exchanged my mac for a windows laptop. I haven't measured it, but I feel more productive simply because I can click what I want to click marginally faster.

Is something in Mac drivers performing non-linear mapping? Why?

Based on the quote above it seems like Linux hasn't even gotten up to par with Mac for mice.

The best litmus test for an OS for me is whether I could play an RTS or FPS competitively with it, even though I haven't played either for years.

1. Only the portion of the principal that is due to be paid within the next 12 months is considered a "current liability".

2. Interest is a "future cash flow" that becomes a liability as it accrues over time.

I see the reasoning for accountants keeping future liabilities off of the balance sheet. I do this myself in multiple contexts.

Still, when making decisions about whether to take out or grant a loan (personal or business) I need to consider future "value" and cash flows. To someone running a business this is probably more important than the balance sheet. So I think the interest recording criticism is valid but relatively minor in the context of the whole article.

I don't have much in the way of critique or judgement to offer on this political philosophy, just an observation: it sounds tribal or even pre-civilization. Out of curiosity I asked an LLM what present day countries most closely implement it. It came back with Somalia and a label: anarcho-libertarianism, with the caveat that it isn't an exact match. Historical examples were also interesting. I'm curious whether you think that's a good example or not.

If the world had more unsettled land I think your ideal would be a lot easier to implement. The U.S. was borne out of people fed up with their current situation (legal or otherwise) deciding to start something new. The fact that it's made up of 50 states, each with their own set of laws and relatively high internal mobility, suggests that its already a mild compromise away from pure democracy and toward your ideal.

To me the purest form of your ideal seems unstable, especially in the face of power imbalances and conflicting choices, and I suspect it would inevitably evolve into something else. As far as I can tell history supports that view.

It may well have been morally OK to most people (see: moral relativism), and since you're implying it wouldn't have been OK to you, it's worth pointing out that you probably wouldn't have done anything about it in the relevant time periods.

If you're an American you don't even need to try that hard to make moral relativism visceral: was the displacement (and far worse) of Native American tribes "OK"? I'd say no, but it isn't morally urgent enough to me or the 99%+ of Americans who are unwilling to pack their bags and return the entirety of two continents to the native descendants.

The root of this whole discussion was a post about how Gemini 3 outperformed other models on some presumably informal question benchmark (a"vibe test"?). When asked for the benchmark, the response from the op and and someone else was that secrecy was needed to protect the benchmark from contamination. I'm skeptical of the need in the op's cases and I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of the secrecy in general. In a case where secrecy has actual value, why even discuss the benchmark publicly at all?

I don't understand the value of a public post discussing their results beyond maybe entertainment. We have to trust you implicitly and have no way to validate your claims.

> There is no "winning" at benchmarks, it's simply that it is a better and more repeatable evaluation than the old "vibe test" that people did in 2024.

Then you must not be working in an environment where a better benchmark yields a competitive advantage.

Will someone (or some system) see my query and think "we ought to improve this"? I have no idea since I don't work on these systems. In some instances involving random sampling... probably yes!

This is the second reason I find the idea of publicly discussing secret benchmarks silly.

1. What is the purpose of the benchmark?

2. What is the purpose of publicly discussing a benchmark's results but keeping the methodology secret?

To me it's in the same spirit as claiming to have defeated alpha zero but refusing to share the game.

For fun: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_694361c12cec819185e9850d0cf0c629

What's the value of a secret benchmark to anyone but the secret holder? Does your niche benchmark even influence which model you use for unrelated queries? If LLM authors care enough about your niche (they don't) and fake the response somehow, you will learn on the very next query that something is amiss. Now that query is your secret benchmark.

Even for niche topics it's rare that I need to provide more than 1 correction or knowledge update.

Nobody anywhere has freedom of speech. And a majority of people don't really think about what it means and don't want it in the purest form despite what they say.

Two examples of "free speech" that are protected in the U.S. under the first amendment:

1. Overt racism (less threat of imminent violence).

2. Nazi apparel.

Say the wrong word or show the wrong symbol in certain settings and you'll quickly understand what I mean. Furthermore I'm confident > 50% of U.S. citizens would find you in the wrong and would support whatever happens to you without much consideration of legality.

Freedom of speech is an ideal with no successful implementation and I don't think that's a bad thing. I prefer to live in the real world where saying stupid shit has consequences and people think just a little bit more carefully about what they say.