So you're saying that just because they can't pay everyone, they should pay no one?

Yeah I know how that sounds but it's the most logical explanation.

Alternatively, they don't have a viable business model?

This isn't rocket science. If your business can't exist within the law, it doesn't get to exist.

There’s no law that says you have to pay businesses because you make customers life easier.

If ChatGPT answers a law question for you that you’d have to ask an expensive lawyer, are they supposed to pay the lawyer too?

Tell Uber you said hi.

The big US credit score trio, Transunion, Equifax and Experian, have all had multiple, massive data leaks. This is not very good at all.

and for the ones you know about, there's more you don't.

cough un-ecrypted experian backups getting stolen from a UPS truck at gun-point and nothing else stolen cough

Unreal Engine has a GC for its internal object graph, so GC is already in use in a ton of games.

Yes! I had a Vizio laptop (the thin one ala a macbook air) and it was absolutely fantastic, probably the best PC laptop I have ever had. It was lightweight, powerful, had a good screen (for the time) plus some things that few other laptops had at the time, like a TPM.

Because it contains a ton of redundancy

Exactly? What's your point? Things have to be low entropy/contain a lot of redundancy in order to compress well.

If it were a more compact format, it is likely both the uncompressed AND compressed sizes would be smaller.

By your logic, if you 10x'd the length of the XML tags in XMPP then it would be even better since you you would get an even further improved compression ratio.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with XML in XMPP since it is negligible overhead, but "it compresses well because it is full of redundancy" is not the argument that should be used to justify it.

That's a strawman. I am not arguing that we make the tag names longer, I am arguing that there is little benefit to a more concise format.

If you are so bandwidth constrained that deflated XML won't do, then I doubt deflated JSON would be good enough either (and that exists anyway, Matrix).

Your argument was initially stated as "XML compresses really well", not "there is little benefit to a more concise format".

However, on your latter point, I am in full agreement.

Where in my original argument did I suggest making the tags longer?

Your argument was that XML compresses really well, which indicates that compression ratio is your evaluation metric. I just suggested a simple way to improve your metric.

My position is that compression ratio is a largely meaningless metric in this instance, so using it as a method for justifying the use of XML (as inferred from "XML compresses really well") is also meaningless. That does not translate to "XML is bad for XMPP", I actually think it is fine, it means "XML compresses really well" doesn't add anything much in the way of justification.

I've spent way too much time on this thread already, so take what you will from it, it is all you from here on out, I am done here.

"By your logic" is usually a canary for strawman, and it's needlessly combative on top of that. Best to step back and reconsider if you find yourself penning that.

The only thing I was saying was exactly what I said, within the context of XMPP, XML compresses really well - I was reinforcing the parent comment. How that relates to metrics in other contexts wasn't what I was talking about at all. I generally avoid XML nowadays, and so your argument with me isn't something I would dedicate thought to in the first place. I see no point in taking anything from this nonsense.

In some places (esp those with low access to birth control and sub-par sexual health education), there are too many unplanned children being born to people who do not have the means to comfortably raise a child without being in poverty.

Free/low-cost birth control and better sex ed are proven to reduce these instances substantially.

If someone has the means to comfortably raise a child without being in poverty do they still need free childcare then?

Often programs like this are subsidized based on income such that if they can afford it, it is subsidized less, or you do not qualify past a certain income. That is one method of managing the program's costs, while still benefitting those who are most heavily affected. This program doesn't appear to do that, but many do.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make though.

Having an extra $2k/mo per child laying around puts you in a pretty high income bracket.

panics are safe, what are you talking about? It is nothing like a null pointer.

Germans sure love their Lüften

What do you mean by a non-internet search engine, and what might be one that is bigger than Google/Bing?

You’ve got to remember that google/bing do not index the internet entire. Part of their magic is selectively indexing only a tiny sliver and still being effective.

Other kinds of search systems have to index everything, which simplifies things but has its own scaling challenges.

Easiest way to think about it is that while the majority of webpages are never indexed, every blob of text in a social media post, private message in an app, email, document, etc in every major app in the world, including the ones with billions of users, is indexed in a search engine for that app:

- GSuite search (think of how many gmails are searchable in the world right now… and they are all indexed)

- the enterprise search powering ChatGPT, Claude (these maybe there by now, if not they are likely well on the way)

- The Microsoft 365 search (this is probably massive with so many corporate email systems and teams systems on it)

- slack search

- X(twitter) search

- ticktock search (this idk, I’ve never used ticktock but if every video and every comment is searchable then this is probably huge)

- Facebook search (especially since this is likely combined across its product suite)

These are probably all larger in effective size than google or bing.

I agree wholeheartedly, and this is the core problem - many of the people evangelizing LLMs for a particular task (especially investors and AI gold rush "entrepreneurs") do not have enough expertise in that particular field to effectively evaluate the quality of the output. It sure looks the part though, and for those with a shallow understanding, it is often enough.