a. Opposed to someone taking my money against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.
b. Not opposed to someone taking my money in exchange for goods or services I want.
a. Opposed to someone moving into my country against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.
b. Not opposed to someone moving into my country because I married them and want them here.
There’s a whole spectrum between a and b, but I think most people are against a.
Legal pickpocketing is taxes you’re opposed to, or wages being garnished.
In theory people who say they’re only against illegal immigration are saying they completely agree with all policies regarding legal immigration, now and maybe into the future. Likely not what these people actually believe because while possible it would be a silly position. They’re probably just saying it to try to find some common ground with very pro immigration people. Likely a fools errand.
You've invented a whole new set of categories of pickpocketing that most people would disagree has anything to do with pickpocketing to justify a flawed argument.
To your last paragraph, no, they are not. There is no automatic implication that people will not change their minds depending on the situation. The argument is not that they can never change their minds, but that it is deceitful to pretend to only oppose illegal immigration in current circumstances and then go on to demonstrate they are also opposed to the currently legal immigration.
Breaking and entering is to immigrating as pickpocketing is to taking my stuff.
Sometimes immigration is legal. Sometimes taking my stuff is legal.
There’s often overlap between legality and what people support or oppose, but not always.
“I oppose something that’s already against the rules” is a simpler/easier argument, rather than saying “I oppose the against the rules thing, and some of the stuff that isn’t against the rules currently”. I think that's why people make this argument of "only against illegal immigration". I agree it could be deceitful, taking the easier argument. It’s also not a tactic that works long term though if it just results in the immigration they were against being made legal. A stronger anti immigration stance, legal or illegal, would be a better starting point.
To be fair there may also be some people who a couple years ago really did only oppose illegal immigration but were then exposed to new information, and changed their mind to oppose some or all legal immigration as well.
Aside from the disagreements between these parties, what about the precedent of running a non-profit, and then transferring all IP to a for profit when it’s convenient to do so?
I wonder if the government or taxpayers have a case to bring regarding that.
This case sets no precedent one way or the other on that question. The IP was transferred to the for-profit for fair value in 2019, and Musk never argued otherwise in this case.
The attorneys general of California and Delaware could challenge that 2019 IP transfer if they so wished on behalf of the public.
Transactions like that happen all the time and are not problematic if handled legally. Any of the interested parties could have sued over it, but none have.
The interested parties would be taxpayers. I think some groups are trying to look into it.
The issue is that they did R&D as a charity, donations to which are tax deductible, there may also be other benefits to being a charity during R&D but that’s a big one, then once the thing works, setup a for profit, sell ip at “fair value”, get some investment, then things are ready for business.
I read there’s no statute of limitations on a tax issue like this, so I guess it might be hanging over them indefinitely.
I’m not a big taxation and government fan, they’d probably just waste the money anyways. It does seem unfair OpenAI gets to use this loophole though, unless all companies can make their R&D investment tax deductible, and get any other benefits of this setup.
Because they got to participate in the early investment in the for profit entity.
> Early Angels (Reid Hoffman, Peter Thiel, and others): Approximately $10 million invested, current value $1.4 billion. That corresponds to a return of around 140x.
The non-profit received shares in the for-profit as a result of the transfer. Those shares are theoretically worth hundreds of billions.
If it had been a for-profit company contributing assets to another for-profit company, the transaction would not have had any different tax consequence.
Yeah. I wonder if the question "Did OpenAI steal a non-profit worth what is now maybe hundreds of billions of dollars?" will ever be answered. If not it will be one of the biggest heists in history.
Of course that question has been answered. They stole it.
Only people who are pretending to be confused are people for whom it's in their interest to be confused.
They created a non-profit with the intention of launching AI to make sure that it would stay in the public trust, and then once it became really valuable, they spirited it away into private hands.
It's just a fact. It's obvious from looking at the thing. The details are designed to confuse and trick you into thinking that what you can plainly see happening is OK somehow.
The gvt won't have much of a leg to stand on until open ai actually turns a profit, until then how are taxpayers cheated? And by then it will be a taxable for profit corporation anyway.
Can we just bring some reality to this conversation. The non-profit still exists, it owns a significant chunk of a now almost trillion dollar company, and the for-profit wouldn't be profitable if it weren't for Billions of dollars of investment from Microsoft.
There is no counter factual where OpenAI exists as a non-profit and still inexplicably gets handed billions of dollars of compute to train LLMs. The for-profit company is a different thing from the non-profit and it exists for perfectly understandable reasons and I'm unsure why anyone other than Elon Musk pretends this doesn't make sense.
What is your proposed counter factual where the non-profit entity retains all ownership of the venture, but somehow finds hundreds of billions of dollars to train LLMs?
An alternative chain of events might be one where OpenAI, Inc. only operated through income and donations, which would probably lead to them scaling more slowly. They could also take on loans.
Having thought about this whole thing more I believe that non-profits should not be a separate type of entity that gets special tax treatment. People have different ideas of what constitutes legitimate non-profit activity. It just opens things up for tax avoidance and scams.
The anti piracy stance would be making it illegal for a surgeon/person to copy the procedure another surgeon invented without payment. Copying does not require additional labor from the inventor.
Obviously we would like the inventor of the procedure to be compensated, but is it worth depriving other people, or potentially them dying, to protect "intellectual property"?
Tesla was built on American R&D and manufacturing and is competitive in terms of cost and features. It’s probably easier to not innovate and go for almost guaranteed short term profit by relocating existing manufacturing processes though.
I don’t think there was no alternative. I think it was an easier, more short term, and more selfish (in relation to fellow countrymen and descendants), choice.
And tesla replaced many workers with automation to stay competitive, and also has factories in europe and china.
I do think consumers have a responsibility here: for the last 30 years i've only had european cars. Even if they're a bit less advanced or a bit more expensive, it's a choice for a healthy local economy. Only the last car was a Tesla, as it seemed to be the best EV choice, but that will not happen again. Again, voting with my wallet, i will not sponsor the actions of a wanna be dictator.
This kind of specialization can be bad for factory workers as well. Doing the same motion over and over can lead to repetitive stress injury.
I think it's true for any worker that performing the same activity over and over can lead to issues that wouldn't occur if work was more varied. That isn't necessarily in a companies interest though since for them it's easier to train people on one task, and they're easier to measure or replace.
The predictable and measurable thing for developers is thinking and cranking out features.
I would have thought this as well. Looking at a trip from Fukuoka to Tokyo though. Shinkansen takes 5 hours and costs about $200. An economy flight is around $50 and takes less than 2 hours, although it’s possible there’s a lot more overhead to that time.
While economical in the sense of a personal budget, airplanes are not nearly as economical as high speed rail in general.
Subsidies and externalities kind of muddy the water when it comes to ticket prices. While it is generally cheaper to fly, this is because you are not paying for the damage your flight is causing to the city around it. Noise, pollution, damage to property, and disruption of the quiet enjoyment of those around you.
Shinkansen is a for profit business that acts as an engine to turn worthless rural land into extremely valuable land. Air travel does the opposite. Property values around airports are extremely low. Every plane rattling people's windows and dropping a plume of unburnt fuel and exhaust on people's heads damages the area under it.
That’s an interesting point, I do often hear about being near a rail line as being a benefit for property values, but you don’t usually hear the same thing about being near an airport. Although this might partially be because a rail line is something people would use more often than an airport.
I don’t have much of a personal opinion on this. I just thought it was interesting. You’d think this train with a fixed route, tons of seating, traveling multiple times per day, would be cheaper than a plane, but somehow it isn’t.
The pollution and noise pollution is an interesting point, that could probably be improved somewhat for air travel while keeping the benefits, if electric planes could be developed. I was in India at one point and the noise of just being anywhere near roads was terrible day and night, it wasn’t even necessary people just love to honk there. There actually was a kind of luxury hotel city (Aerocity Delhi) near the airport there, I guess if they’re already used to that much noise being near an airport can be valuable.
There is some advantage for cars and planes in that you don’t need to develop the whole land between the two points you’re interested in traveling between as much as you do for rail, maybe that’s where the price difference is coming from.
I don’t know if there’s really that much time overhead. If I’m spending $200 on that rail ticket, I’m gonna arrive at the train station early to account for any issues I have getting there, just like an airport. I find it a little frustrating that people argue that there is zero time overhead in getting to a train station but there’s like three hours with an airplane when in fact, it’s often two hours for airlines and one for trains in reality.
For flights you have to go through significant amounts of security which is often highly variable.
Further, flights tend to be distinct events. For many routes there may only be one per day, and even for busier routes you usually can't just hop on the next one without significant effects on your travel plans, for example rescheduling connecting flights. Trains on the other hand just keep running, there's going to be another one going the exact same route every few hours at most, likely less for busy routes. You can go to a train station without looking at the schedule, for a flight you're scheduling your entire day around it.
Shinkansen operates at a frequency of one train every 4 minutes on some of the busier lines. The $200 is mostly for very long single trips. It's mostly used by commuters who get monthly passes for cheap and are refunded by their jobs. I can't even imagine how horrible it would be to fly on an airline every single day. It sounds exhausting.
The devs were may have been too busy "sprinting" and getting their assigned tickets done to think about higher level concerns like "is this good? can we make things faster or better?".
They calculate tips after fees and before discounts, so customers are tricked into tipping more. First noticed this after getting a buy one get one free deal and seeing a tip calculated at 2X what I'd expect
After fees is a bit tacky, but, at least in the US, I think it is considered good etiquette to tip on the original amount before discounts. I remember this came up a lot when Groupon was big offering a lot of BOGO deals.
I’ve never thought much about it, always consider it’s just a percentage. I am in Canada but it’s pretty much the same. Googling “tipping buy one get one” turns up this snippet from a Quora answer:
> The amount of effort the server devotes to your ordre is the same regardless of what the owner charges for your meal. So tip on the original, undiscounted price. And tip at least 20 percent.
Kind of funny, when it results in a higher tip I should consider the amount of effort.
I expect if I said I was only tipping $2 on a $100 bottle of wine at a restaurant because it isn’t any extra effort to grab an expensive bottle the poster might not agree.
100% of those tips go to the driver, and not in some sort of scammy door dash way that means uber pays the driver less. so it's important to note that "tricking" people into tipping more doesn't help uber's bottom line.
> it's important to note that "tricking" people into tipping more doesn't help uber's bottom line.
Of course it does. Their drivers presumably want a certain level of total compensation, but they dont care who it comes from. The higher Uber is able to convince people to tip, the less they have to offer in wages to retain drivers.
uber's bottom line ... as in what gets reported in the quarterly numbers. the tips absolutely do not go towards uber's income.
> The higher Uber is able to convince people to tip, the less they have to offer in wages to retain drivers.
this is unfounded speculation.
your complaint reads like you want to fault uber for not scamming the drivers. as someone else pointed out, after years of saying that uber would never be profitable it makes sense that there's some moving the goalposts here.
Yup, they will shower you with 'promo' offers like '2 for 1' (where the price is typically just doubled for a single item anyway), then try to charge you like a 36% tip. They also straight up steal many of the tips from their delivery people as evidenced my many such threads/concerns online.
I think we can all agree there should be a line length limit, it has to enforce it eventually. You could say “it’s just a couple more characters” until the line is 200 characters long.
It should put more weight on the length that the author has original authored it as. So between "always break" and "always expand" there should be an area of "leave it however it already is".
It can safely ignore the line length, gofmt does this and I've never heard anyone complain about it. The VSCode formatter also doesn't touch line breaks and it works fine.
Last time I looked into it, the only reason I can't turn it off is that Prettier works off an AST that doesn't keep the line breaks that the user put into the code at all, and it "rebuilds" the whole code from this AST.
The problem is not the diff per se, the real problem is that I can't find a configuration of Prettier where I can have long lines where it makes sense and short ones where that makes sense.
I was with you until you said
“make me Facebook for dogs”. I think a sufficiently pattern recognizing AI could probably make a somewhat useful/accurate application from that prompt, because most social media apps follow a set of patterns. Users (dogs) have certain attributes that go on their profile, they can share things with their friends, notifications should work. Where it gets tricky is the details, but maybe AI could get you a rough version at least by knowing social media app conventions. This is also how a motivated programmer would go about it, instead of asking the “idea person” a million questions they would just assume things.
I say this as someone who has looked at AI generated code and was not impressed though, so this is probably still a long way off.
The real issue with prompting a la "Facebook for dogs" is how ridiculously underspecified such a prompt is. You see the problem with this very clearly in text to image models: you might have a specific idea of your dog in your head, but no matter how often you prompt "cute white Maltese dog with a tuft of fur across its eyes", you will never get something that would pass as your dog. (A more obvious challenge would be to try to generate an image of yourself if you are not a celebrity). The amount of words needed to replicate every detail exactly would amount to at least a short essay. You give an AI the prompt "Facebook for dogs" and it could take that in SO many different directions.
Another problem that I'm personally more concerned about is that this way of coding will allow for so many security flaws to be built into the code. Even if it builds something that matches your expectations for the prompt, what's stopping it from generating something vulnerable to attacks that leak all your users' data? Humans already struggle enough with this, and we're feeding all our flawed codebases into these models.
b. Not opposed to someone taking my money in exchange for goods or services I want.
a. Opposed to someone moving into my country against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.
b. Not opposed to someone moving into my country because I married them and want them here.
There’s a whole spectrum between a and b, but I think most people are against a.
Legal pickpocketing is taxes you’re opposed to, or wages being garnished.
In theory people who say they’re only against illegal immigration are saying they completely agree with all policies regarding legal immigration, now and maybe into the future. Likely not what these people actually believe because while possible it would be a silly position. They’re probably just saying it to try to find some common ground with very pro immigration people. Likely a fools errand.