An even more generous interpretation (not saying this is the case and a complete excuse, but might explain some of the choices) is that there are some phrases people do not want to type by accident.
“Male chauvinist pig” is something many would be very upset to send to their boss by accident. So it’s perhaps understandable some such phrases are not excluded from the guesswork.
What I don't understand is how you can type something that is close enough to “Male chauvinist pig” that an uncensored autocorrect will guess it, without intending to type “Male chauvinist pig”. That phrase and others like it, even if one or two letters are wrong or swiped through incorrectly, is unambiguous.
Even on a single-word basis, "male" might be make, makes, Maria, Maia, narrow, Maddow, marrow, Mariya, Marita, mafia, males, mallow, Maslow, male's, or masks. "Chauvinist" might be coatings, costing, coaxing, coasting, crating, contingency, contingent, contingencies, chauvinistic, Chauvin, or chaining. "Pig" might be PC, PIC, PCC, pox, poof, PVC, pH, put, pug, PV, Pooh, log, or pub. These are all possibilities that were actually presented when I tried to swipe these words on my Android phone, twice each. Taking into account additional context will broaden this set of possibly confusable words, not narrow it.
We might not talk about a "narrow contingency put" or "Maria crating PVC" very often, but an uncensored autocorrect would almost certainly correct those phrases to the far more common "male chauvinist pig" in the rare cases where someone did try to swipe them.
Step 1: a word of 4-6 letters that's somewhat close to "male". Say "name" or "masked". Look at the key positions, you'll see what I mean.
Step 2: a word that's even less close to chauvinist, and that makes sense after the word you intended, but no sense after "male", so the guesser picks "chauvinist", based on its incorrect first guess and your second swipe.
I get what you’re saying, but LLMs really aren’t great at writing code for use in “key” codebases where every line needs to be clear and clear easy to review, not adding to the maintenance burden any more heavily than necessary.
Now reviewing code, finding flaws? They’re great at that. Prototyping new ideas, and suggesting potential solutions? Amazingly useful. Writing lots of code solving problems in projects focused on having the features not on being long term secure and easy to extend? They seem to do this very well.
But the actual code going into a web browser engine needs to be very carefully produced.
So I’d compare it more to how c++ going into safety critical systems cannot use any of the “cool” features of c++. Code going into a web browser cannot be generated without a human hand tightly on the tiller.
Survivorship bias. Floppies failed all the time. Flash can be unreliable if you’re talking about the cheapest or abused the wrong way, but flash SSDs handled wisely are much better than hdds , which in turn are much better than floppies.
If you compare the thumb stick that came free from a convention then compare it to a floppy that came free with a magazine. And in the end neither matters because they’re both cheapest possible junk, not fair examples of the tech.
Similarly, the cheapest led bulbs (put in poorly ventilated fittings) have crappy lifetimes, but that’s not the techs fault, it’s because they weren’t engineered to last, they are cheap crap. Well designed leds placed sensibly are vastly better than bulbs, but that’s hidden by the cheap end of the market
You’re not wrong, if someone is willing to let family, friends, hobbies, etc fall to the wayside and dedicate themselves to work above all else, that isn’t inherently wrong, and could be a satisfying life.
But do consider the implications. I’d argue that the compensation you need to seek changes. Working for others in such a context is throwing away the only autonomy you have (having discarded other avenues), so if work is your life, you really need to work for yourself, or at least own and control your working conditions to some extent. Otherwise you’re just a hamster in a wheel. Clearly money is of little value once you decide to forgo any real use of money. The only thing you can trade for your work is ownership of the product you produce.
I can believe that 100x the exposure is a lowball estimate, but surely the danger is much much lower? Like it’s low enough we still struggle to define it, compared to asbestos which was incredibly deadly just on a 2 decade delay compared to most deadly things.
We’d know by now if plastic was anything like asbestos, it’s been around for long enough.
It depends on what chemicals the plastic reacts with. Its more of class of
pollutants like aromatic hydrocarbons, randomly forming when the plastic
reacts with something in environment, the paper has this explained:plastic
is "conditionally inert" material until it gets some electric charge.
Then it suddenly a chemical factory floor.
I think if I thought I’d wasted a paycheck on a broken gadget I’d feel blind panic for a second, I’d eventually think through the reality that they’ll probably cover such an obvious fault, but I’d still feel incredibly stupid for wasting my money at first.
Of course, that’s why i wouldn’t buy this thing in the first place, but i can empathise with those who were less willing to wait and see.
Or maybe AfD hasn’t targeted you for other reasons, so you’re not fighting against a marketing team to avoid the videos, only against the “pure” form of the algorithm.
From my experience Youtube simply recommends more of the type of videos that you actually watched. Watch history overpowers basically anything else you do, your subscriptions have little to no influence. A single click on a 'wrong' video, and you'll get tons of similar ones in your recommendations feed for weeks to come, especially when you end up clicking some of the newly recommend videos. It requires purging unwanted topics from the watch history to actually get rid of them, which so far worked very reliable for me.
Almost any other kind of investment is more useful.
reply