As long as we don't underestimate the power of motivated reasoning for other certain people as well, who like AI coding for various ideological or financial reasons.
I think microservices are supposed to be easier to deploy independently, that's the whole point. And if they are not, it means you're just doing it wrong.
But in truth, all the projects with microservices I have seen in real life had deployment coordination problems, and looked to me like distributed monoliths. So maybe it's a 'no true scotsman' thing. Maybe they are always, or at least most of the time, harder.
Certainly this world comprises many other things than the Holocaust and IBM's support of it. Perhaps your awareness is lacking if you think that is the main thing to be aware of in this world.
Maybe say what you think they were saying? What is it with these maximally ambiguous comments?
To me "Are you aware of the world you live in?" suggests "If you don't even know this, you don't know anything. This is the first thing anyone should know". I'm willing to learng if they meant something else, but I guess that's asking a lot.
The point is that Oracle's actions are unremarkable in the context of the existing state of the world, and that corporations are generally not concerned with the morality of their customers.
This was, to my thinking, such a straightforward interpretation that it didn't bear making explicit; and your interpretation genuinely didn't even occur to me.
It doesn't surprise me that corporations [whose primary, if not sole concern is the profit motive] don't care about the morality of their customers. What I don't understand is why you're objecting to me voting with my wallet, something that's been a popular retort against progressive and humanitarian movements for at least the past two decades.
> I simply said that I disagree with your stated motivations for your vote.
That's a semantic distinction without a difference.
> The way that you discuss your plan makes it sound as if you consider it morally incumbent upon others to follow suit. I do object to that.
That's more or less true: I do believe that people should BDS corporations that knowingly and willingly harm humanity (eg: aid and abet genocide); that it's not within our interests to let such things slide. And while I am biased, this doesn't feel like a particularly controversial take: it feels like I'm just spelling out basic civics. But.. this is also just like my opinion, man. You do you.
My thought exactly. "May guarantee" is meaningless nonsense.
> Nvidia has revised its plans to support a proposed OpenAI data center project in Ohio and is now expected to initially guarantee less than $120 billion
There is no actual information in this article. "Plan", "proposed", "expected", "initially", "less than". It's just a report on the thoughts of some people.
There is hardware attestation that prevents a perfect sandbox from being possible.
Unless you know how to build a sandbox that can simulate a TPM with a key inside that only Google knows. Or something like that. I'm not an expert but there's plenty of information on the internet about this. It's definitely more than "the sandbox is buggy".
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
The "interesting new phenomenon", obviously, is the potential of the generalization of what expressed in the title. It has very evidently both relevance to intellectual curiosity and a potential of impact on our activities.
> The "interesting new phenomenon", obviously, is the potential of the generalization of what expressed in the title.
Why is this thing so difficult to name and you need to describe it in such a roundabout way? "Drones might be shot down a lot"? It's neither new nor an intellectual curiosity. "Drones are used for war" also not. It's been happening for years now. What is so interesting? Can you name it without references to generalizations of expressions of other references?
I'm again reminded that a significant percentage of HN readership are those working in US AdTech, who's very salaries are dependent on abusing peoples privacy. Hardly surprising a hefty part of the HN demographic slants towards opposing privacy laws.
What's the difference between using GPT to write the prompt to GPT, and "thinking"? The LLM uses the first tokens to predict more tokens, and then uses those tokens to predict even more tokens.
Roughly speaking it is the difference between having a contractor go out and do some work and having that same contractor first come up with a plan to do some work, run that by you, and then go out to do that work.
Part of it is as a another comment in this chain mentions the chance to review the prompt. Part of it is that it forces the AI system to plan things in a certain order, in much the same way that forcing the contractor to write the plan out first forces the contractor to proceed in a certain predefined order that may (or may not!) be better at getting to a final answer.
