Different levels of capabilities. The summary feature in google uses a quick and inaccurate AI model. Were it to be a heavier model, we wouldn’t have this problem.
We would still have this problem. The heavier models make mistakes at too high a rate vs. a physician. Especially on imaging data. Real world data and patient presentations often deviate from the textbooks they are trained on.
That's a different class of problem. It will do just fine on text based queries spanning a few pages. Probably better than the average physician (average over all countries).
I do agree that LLM's are not there yet in the image part.
1) It's in the title: "The Price of Fame" implies that there are downsides to becoming famous, rather than there are downsides to having traits that might make you famous.
2) While the abstract merely claims "associated with" (which is correlation not causation), the phrase "beyond occupational factors" implies that the authors felt they removed important non-causal factors, hinting at likely causal relationship.
And yes, any causality implications are completely unfounded, and so this paper is of low quality.
Would appreciate any comments about whether this is good advice for LG G5. And if it is, does it apply only to movies / TV shows, or also to other video sources (like youtube, gaming, etc)?
1) A lot of informal (i.e., not in a scheduled meeting) chats are more valuable than meetings. They are much more rare when people WFH.
2) Many folks tend to be more distracted when WFH. TLs don't have a perfect vision into whether someone spent 4 hours on a bug (or a design doc) or 2 hours on the bug / design doc and 2 hours on online shopping / playing with kids.
It's quite confusing to me that none of the comments I saw in this thread don't discuss those factors (I'd be fine if people mentioned them and explained why they are not too important).
Obviously there are also factors in favor of WFH: commute costs, personal satisfaction (which may indirectly improve productivity and/or retention of the best people), noise in the workplace, lack of meeting rooms, etc. But it's far from obvious to me if, on balance, WFH or RTO works better for building a successful company.
I definitely agree with you about (1), though this can be somewhat mitigated by having a good culture of agreeing to hop into impromptu video calls.
(2) feels weird to me; if the work is getting done, is there an issue? Does it matter if I spend 4 hours or 2 hours on a design doc, if the result is a good design doc?
(2) At the office, it's harder to pretend that work took longer than it actually took. If you're done with the design doc in 2h, with colleagues sitting all around you, what can you do to pretend that it took you longer? Mess around with Confluence, pretending to work? You might as well move on to the next design doc, or find something useful to do meanwhile.
At home, you can just pick up the Xbox controller and say it took you 4 hours.
I like the comfort of WFH, and there are plenty of people (myself included) that are responsible enough to handle it, but the problem is that the average person isn't. And we all pay for it.
That's a very confident statement to make. My company is very much happy with remote working. 50% of my team aren't even in the country. Most other teams are the same. I don't feel like I'm paying any price for that.
Happy to hear that it's working out well for you, but there is always a cost. The less common successful remote work becomes across the industry, the more companies like yours stand out. And remote work goes back to being a premium, highly competitive perk, like it used to be in the past.
And I agree that remote work is perfectly possible with a good culture and responsible employees, but most companies don't really have the culture or hiring practices that optimize for that.
> The less common successful remote work becomes across the industry
You're presupposing your conclusion. I don't believe remote work is less successful. I think this is driven from angles such as:
* Managers who have made their career by visibility, struggling to adapt to a new normal
* A way to get rid of staff without paying severance
* Pressure from certain types of politician who have made up their mind (regardless of any evidence) that remote working is harmful
And others
It really is a shame that for once it felt like labour had something going their way, and somehow the leaders of capital have convinced us to fight each other on this, while they take it away again.
Have you not noticed management cracking the whip in this environment? 2 hours shopping could be 2 hours shipping code! Everyone has uniform maximum productivity every minute and anything short of 100% focus on work is time theft!
It's rather simple: You don't pay me to write code for 4/8/12 hours per day, you pay me to get a job done. If that job's worth $X to you, you pay me $X, everyone's happy. And that's exactly how it works in office, too. Ever notice that HN's busier during work hours than after?
If don't feel an employee's work output is worth their $X, tell them that. Then, if they suddenly improve, great. If they don't, fire them. It's really that simple. This is America, any obstacles to sacking incompetent employees are of your own design.
Also, I'm wondering if any other manufacturer would make the crank and the drum from the same material. Wouldn't it be like $100 extra to make a stainless steel spider?
I can't recall, but I think it was about 7 years. Some will say that's an acceptable lifetime, but I think I did the math once, and estimated it was only a little less than laundromat pricing (less opportunity cost).
Fairness doesn't come into play here, this is just about predicting which of the overwhelmingly many sources of information are worth paying attention to.
Feel free to come up with your own predictive model of whether someone is worth listening to. It's hard to compare such models fairly, but if you feel yours is better, it might be worth sharing.
I'm now completely confused. Wallets were drained years ago? So $15B worth of bitcoin was already transferred? From whom to whom? And then why is this entire post considered news, if the wallet is empty?
My guess is that as soon as feds got their hands on the seed phrases they transferred the bitcoin to a wallet they made. The case then ground on for a few more years and now that they have the indictments all lined up, they are actually doing the forfeiture process.
The actual taking of the bitcoin is merely taking custody of the bitcoin. The forfeiture process changes the actual _ownership_. Think in terms of when the feds take cash from a car. FIRST they actually take the cash THEN LATER they file the forfeiture.
Even if this bug never existed, models can still see lookahead commits during pretraining. Do we expect this bug to have a greater impact than the pretraining leakage?
Obviously having something available during test time is more valuable than buried somewhere in the pretraining mixture. But in pretraining it happens presumably with high probability (why wouldn't coding models pretrain on the entire github), while in test time it apparently happened only very occasionally?
The article says that after the fix, the "discoverable" option sets nofollow/noindex. If so, how are discoverable chats different from non-discoverable now?
- Did he take the offer or not?
- Did he forfeit the vested shares because he took the offer or because he didn't?
- What was he offered in return for forfeiting the vested shares?
- Did he get a payout of 1% because he took the offer or because he didn't?
- The 1% comment implies that Google didn't use the $2.4B to buy the shares of Windsurf; if not shares, then what did Google get in return?
Original citation: "I was given an offer that would explode same day. I had to forfeit all of my vested shares earned over my 3.5+ years at Windsurf. I was ultimately given a payout of only 1% of what my shares would have been worth at the time of the deal."
Aren't they both searching various online sources for relevant information and feeding that into the LLM?
reply