Yeah, so, that's a lossy/ambiguous process. That represent_in_text(raster_image) -> "dog" don't contain a meaningful amount of the original data. The idea of LLM aided CAD sounds to me like, a sufficiently long hash should contain data it represents. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The phrase implies that powerful companies know that historically black neighborhoods don’t have the resources to mount a legal defense against abnormal pollution from data center generators, so the smart choice is to put all the pollution near historically black neighborhoods.
The agenda, as it is every day, is how to externalize costs so that megacompanies don’t have to spend more money to keep our environment clean.
Crime rates also statistically correlate with demographics, but if I assume a specific person is a criminal based on that stat, I would (rightly) be called racist.
Expecting people to assume 'historically black' == 'poor' similarly feels racist.
"Historically black" is a euphemism -- that's a term that makes people feel better about something awful -- which refers to the fact that for the majority of the last three hundred years people have been systematically, governmentally, socially and personally discriminated against because of the color of their skin, and that racism led to massive inequity reflected in wealth, income, education and standards of living.
The facts of history show this. It is not a subtle statistical effect.
People who argue the way that you have been are either woefully ignorant of this matter or are playing games trying to justify the status quo, or are just racist trolls. This isn't a FAQ on HN because it's a FAQ in real life.
> Crime rates also statistically correlate with demographics, but if I assume a specific person is a criminal based on that stat, I would (rightly) be called racist.
Who said anything about a specific person? They are talking about a neighborhood, in a urban area in a region known for the endemic poverty in black-majority areas due to the long shadow of slavery and Jim Crow.
As a wise character once said, "poverty is a condition, not a crime".
> > Expecting people to assume 'historically black' == 'poor' similarly feels racist.
There are a few historically black communities in the US that are middle-class and prosperous, and Black Americans have made huge advances, but to this day, concentrations of Black American community prosperity tend to be the exception rather than the rule.
The question is how you check, qualify and--last but not least--apply the statistical findings. Are we trying to lift disadvantaged communities by providing extra resources and help people get on a better footing in life, or harassing individuals on the street because they have a certain skin color? I'm very eager to support the former and protest the latter.
I don't know, what are we doing with these assumptions? Are we trying to lift disadvantaged communities by providing extra resources and help people get on a better footing in life, or harassing individuals on the street because they have a certain skin color? I'm very eager to support the former and protest the latter.
You've got an extra actor in the mix that makes for a different argument and actually supports the idea that it's racist, I think.
Namely - I think most agree that it's racist to mindlessly assume race and poverty are correlated. The argument here is that the AI companies made that assumption - in other words, they're being called racists.
I don't think it's racist to speculate that a corporation, that made choices that specifically impact black neighborhoods, is racist.
“Work best” is giving Apple the benefit of the doubt here. The point of standards like Bluetooth is to avoid vendor lock-in and promote interoperability. If Apple chooses to leverage the spec to produce a product that has degraded functionality when used with other vendors, that goes against the spirit of the spec and makes it worthless.
You might argue, well why did Apple choose to use Bluetooth at all if they’re not going to participate in the interoperability motive? Because initially (think early iPhones) Apple did not design wireless communication modules and benefits from buying COTS from existing vendors.
So would it be easier to just participate in vendor lock-in? Let me ask you, do you enjoy being able to fill up a car at any gas station, or charge your car at any 120V outlet? Standards usually benefit everyone.
You can certainly do that if you restrict software to be a mathematical artifact instead of an executable running on one of 3 kernels with different APIs and behaviors, let alone the mountain of dependencies your code will build and link against.
The reality is that the machines we write software for are complex, and trying to abstract it away and simplify it will introduce more abstractions that someone has to understand and deal with when they inevitably leak. It's not all bad, all this shit we're writing makes a lot of money.
I downvoted you because you are exceptional but the rest of the world is not. Most people benefit from traditional education, software engineering is not different.
its not THAT exceptional. I myself know several people who bootstrapped themselves into being descent software engineers. Traditional education is certainly fine for some people but its not the only way for the masses to learn. whats missing is the discipline of pushing yourself when you have no immediate extrinsic motivation.
You might have had a point a few decades ago when the information itself was difficult to fine but with the internet and online courses, its easier than ever to teach yourself in a "nontraditional" setting.
BS. Everything I learned from college was me anki and youtube. Lectures were wasting me time from actually studying. Most people I talked to they said. They didn't follow the lecturer at all just sat there like me for the attendence. There is no reason why we should continue to have mandatory lectures when you can just record them like Gilbert Strang did.
You are not technically wrong, but you are economically wrong.
The water cycle _could_ require spending grid energy to filter/pump water into an economically usable state. Instead if water was better managed, we would not need to build additional grid capacity for water management.
Your argument basically boils down to "If energy was unlimited, we could be wasteful!", which, again, is technically true, but ignores the economic reality.
From what I can glean from Google, the sun moves 1500 cubic kilometers of water from the ocean into the air every day, around 500,000 cubic kilometers a year (ie, a stupendous amount).
Apparently around 10% of that makes it up the various mountains and comes back down as rivers - that's 50,000 cubic kilometers.
And for scale, human "consumption" is 5000 cubic kilometers.
I agree we should be careful and intelligent about how we use water and where we get it from, but I fail to be alarmed.
Every degree of global warming raises the amount of water the air can hold by 7%. That's what's going on in California recently. We only need to put our finger on the scale to really fuck things up. We don't have to stand on it.
Also heat island effect. We don't have to move the needle in Yosemite to make downtown LA into a death trap.
What's your tidy "Me worry?" explanation for aquifer depletion?
Right, but the genius was in understanding that the dynamics of a system under PID control are predictable and described by differential equations. Are there examples of LLMs correctly identifying that a specific mathematical model applies and is appropriate for a problem?
And it's cheating if you give it a problem from a math textbook they have overfit on.
Government spending isn't immune from opportunity costs. If fewer players receive all the money to provide fewer more expensive goods and services, then revenue may be flowing through the national coffers but the money doesn't cover what the government wants to do.
Unless you forgot a /s, in which case (thumbs up).
I think the governments only role is to guarantee the planes don’t fall out of the sky or crash into each other, and then the airlines can price compete.
You can represent a dog as a specific multi-dimensional array (raster image), but the word dog represents many kinds of images.
reply