1) Understands the problem ("what are comments?")

2) Accepts that it is a problem ("how can more comments be a bad thing?")

3) Cares enough to solve the problem ("is this issue really a priority to solve right now? just accept the PR and we'll go back and fix if needed some other time cough never cough")

4) Believes you (this can take many forms, but the most common is, subconsciously, "this other engineer says it's not a problem, so I'll just assume it's not since that's easier")

All of these logistical, political and social factors are "the ocean"

Eating less can have positive effects (losing weight), but can also make you feel like shit (in a wide variety of ways), as your body is running on less energy intake than it has been accustomed to.

Depending on your activity level and the makeup of your diet, eating less can also lead to muscle loss and nutrient deficiencies.

> A modern consumer GPU can crack "four random English words" in a day

What you're saying now:

> My mid-tier laptop GPU can crack the usual wordlist in under 12 hours against MD5 (46 billion guesses per second)

So your response to the plain mathematical fact that, no, your consumer GPU cannot crack "four random English words" in a day, is that your consumer GPU can crack four words chosen from a list of a few thousand, in a day. Followed by personal attacks. Okay.

This is just completely false.

...huh? This is completely backwards. We should be making laws that punish parents for failing to parent properly. Not laws that punish everyone.

If we pass a law that children under a certain age may not use social media, then giving your child a non-child-locked device should be treated the same way we treat giving your child alcohol or cigarettes.

That's really the heart of the problem - in an effort to sound exciting, many parts of the article are just wasting the reader's time rather than simply explaining how things work clearly and directly.

That freedom is actually why it's hard to create a Bloomberg competitor - in order to provide their data stream, Bloomberg has to have partnerships with hundreds of companies worldwide who run exchanges for stocks, bonds and other instruments. If exchanges were government-controlled rather than free-market, there would be more centralization and getting the data together would be easier.

Personally I tend to feel like your second bullet - ethics are based on rules whereas morals are based on emotions.

At typical corporation, something like a Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer (CECO) would be largely focused on legal compliance - making sure company personnel aren't engaged in bribery, fraud, insider trading etc. The value of this role (and the medical example) is to prevent lawsuits and/or prosecution.

For a company like Meta, an ethicist is likely concerned with the inherent ethical concerns of running a social media company, which impacts the mental health of its users, many of whom are minors. For AI companies, the ethics of releasing models that are capable of doing dangerous things. In name, the job probably involves giving recommendations about how to ethically implement features in the platform to minimize harm. In practice, the job probably accomplishes very little.

People say this a lot, but I've never seen Claude or any other LLM insert clichéd LLM-isms into translated text.

There's obviously a degree of interpretation and "smoothing" that goes into translation, but it doesn't rise to the level of making the entire thing sound like an AI's voice. This blog post was prompted, not translated.

Your defense would have to be that you were authorized to access the data, or that you did not know that you weren't authorized to access the data. Not merely that the data was easily accessible.

let me guess, they called it "Copliot"