Absolutely not! Such low life gutter talk is not acceptable in polite society and shouldn't be allowed in any professional atmosphere. Or am I again trying to elevate HN?
Maybe your cultural values aren't my cultural values. Maybe you need to consider who you are excluding by suggesting that using a curse word is unacceptable?
Cursing has a long tradition in lower economic class culture, in some minority cultures, in queer culture, heck in mainstream cultures worldwide we say "shit", etc. You want them all to conform to your one view of how professionals should be? The curse word isn't directed at you, it isn't directed at anyone you know, or even at a person.
No, I think maybe I'd rather live in a world where people are colorful, use language that's authentic to them, and include more people in the dialog.
>>Maybe you need to consider who you are excluding by suggesting that using a curse word is unacceptable?
I am. Thus the complaint. I would think the general audience here is of a higher caliber than low-class cultures whose values and education can't rise above profanity.
Profanity is fine, even among the well-educated and elite classes. I think you're being a bit puritanical here. I've encountered this attitude before (my octogenarian dad loses his mind when I say "fuck", which I do many times daily), but there's really nothing behind all the pearl clutching - sometimes people curse, and that's Just Fine.
Ah, so racism and classism it is then. Can't be having those "poors" here on our spotless orange site. Want to say something homophobic and or sexist before we continue?
False dichotomy. An H1B hire who has graduated from a US university and will receive a green card in a few years and become a US citizen after another 5 contributes to "the next generation of US talent" in the same way as John from Chicago.
You present the false dichotomy without qualifying 'the same way'.
Is it in terms of collective taxes paid? Does that include or exclude family? Or is it in terms of money spent in the local economy? Or in terms of money sent abroad to other economies? Maybe it's in more direct terms of contributing to the next generation of talent, like volunteering, coaching, or hosting scholastic events for the community? Or maybe it's an entirely other class of event, like a club exclusively for specific races/citizens of a specific country?
Almost all of my co-workers who were educated in the US but came from abroad send their earnings abroad, were part of 'X Country Citizens' clubs in college, and don't socialize too much outside of their native language. I don't think that's a problem, and it's just anecdotal, but it's certainly not the 'same way as John from Chicago'.
EB-2/EB-3 green cards which an H-1B holder usually pursues are quota-capped per country of birthplace. An Indian born applicant may have to wait for over 100 years.
Given that the inference engine is dealing with untrusted inputs by definition, presumably you would want to sandbox it anyway. I don't think it matters whether it's the inputs that are untrusted or the outputs.
Sandboxes are speed bumps. Even the serious ones have spectator sports for compromising them (eg pwn2own vs Chrome). In addition, proprietary GPU sw stacks are notoriously crashy and lacking in robustness against hostile inputs, which the inference engine must have access to and can't be walled off by the sandbox.
I think it's good that someone is making this point, anyway. For sandboxing a super-capable offensive-security AI, you would think that cloning PyPI and running it as an offline service ought to be table stakes, but apparently that's not how OpenAI saw it, for instance.
I really highly doubt that. The way Microsoft uses the “for business” branding is not in an IRS/legal way to distinguish between for-profit vs nonprofit entities. Rather more like “Discord vs Slack” or “a subreddit vs zendesk” type offering.
“For Organizations” would really have been a more appropriate branding. Governments around the world, including the US government, used plenty of “For Business” software from Microsoft. However, the “for business” branding tells you where the money came from.
So a nonprofit would almost certainly be on a “for business” subscription type. That is to distinguish it from a “for students”, “for home”, or the default “for one person” subscription type.
Fwiw, Sol's reasoning output is always overly excited. Almost every paragraph ends with something like "I want to do a great job!" or "let's try and find out!" Etc, exclamation mark included.
Regular (non reasoning) output sounds normal, it's something specific to whatever model they are using to summarize reasoning.
The comment you were replying to said that the reason for high prices is oligopoly and you've replied that the way to prevent oligopoly is to be against communism, so logically it follows that fighting communism would help lower the prices, no?
Well, I guess if the OP was under the mistaken belief that the only reason for high prices was because of an oligopoly, then sure. But that premise is incorrect and it would be a bit bizarre to suggest that given at a minimum we could look to American tariffs or something never mind the pandemic helicopter money that was dispersed.
But if you want to follow that train of thought with that faulty premise, then sure yes we must stop communism to lower prices because the OP says that oligopoly is solely responsible for price increases, so it follows that further restriction on market participants further increases prices. I don't agree with that premise, but if that's your view and the OPs view then it would be logically consistent for you to also advocate stamping out communism to lower prices.
They advocated for competition instead of ogliopoly. You decided to talk about a completely different and irrelevant way there could be a lack of competition. Even if your conclusion is right, that they would be against communism if it was a realistic threat here, there was no reason to bring it up.
I could say that a bunch of badly placed volcanos would reduce competition and they must be against those volcanos. Such a statement is technically true but it's a non-sequitur.
It's taking advantage of the presence of a "cycler" object in the template context which has an __init__ method that can be used to access globals, then builtins, then call the exec() function against a string of code.
Jinja doesn't promise to be secure out of the box (the text on their homepage is misleading: "Jinja doesn’t allow arbitrary Python code in templates" - what it means is that there isn't a documented way to drop code into a template like you might have with PHP) - there's a sandbox mode but it's not guaranteed either: https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/stable/sandbox/
If computers could read thoughts and 100% reliably determine when the user is done with their current task and would like to switch back to the other application, then yes, it would definitely make sense to implement the functionality you're describing.
In the real world, where it's impossible for the OS to distinguish between the "You stopped checking in the first 0.5 sec while the app took 1 sec to start" scenario and the "you're still busy with the current task and don't want to switch to the other app yet" scenario, the safe choice is always to not steal the focus because the cost of switching too early is significantly higher than the cost of not switching.
If perfect is not possible let's do nothing? Your approach is likely the reason for the current bad global rule. You want to replace it with another bad global rule.
But in the real world I'd use proxy conditions to arrive at a rate of correct guesses that's satisfactory for me just like with everything else with computers (even basic mouse clicks), not use your total "safe" ban (safety has a trade-off, you can't resolve that universally)
I (and presumably a lot of other people) don't believe that it's possible to build a system that can dynamically determine when it's acceptable to steal focus with low enough error rate to make it better than a total ban.
Seemingly you disagree and believe that such a system is possible. Is there anything preventing you from implementing it to prove the doubters wrong?
