Crazy idea: Decentralize the CVE across many nations so that no single organization has the power to eliminate it.
Even if the US doesn't play ball, it's a public database right? Is there anything stopping the UN, EU, UK, Australia, etc from copying it and establishing their own joint CVE?
I spend at least 40 hr a week doing something I have no motivation for. Most people do. Even if you don't hate your job, would you actually do it if you weren't getting paid?
Your experience sounds awful but surely there is a reasonable middle ground between forcing a kid to do any math and forcing them to do it in 4+ hour sessions.
Water is obviously wet, depending on your definition of "wet".
Likewise Google is obviously an online advertising tech monopoly, depending on your definition of "monopoly".
There might be legal or technical rationals for why these statements are not true. But practically speaking, they are obviously true and that's what should matter.
Because unless you're talking about a single molecule of water, water is always covered in more water.
But that's beside the point.
Practically speaking, a person considers something "wet" if contacting it will make them wet. If a person contacts water, they will become wet. It's not about the technical definition of "wet" - it's about the practical implication of the word and the effect it has on people and things around it.
Just like how even if Google does not technically have a monopoly, their influence over the market is monopolistic in practice and has the same adverse effects as a monopoly.
Because they stroked his ego. Just like other tech leaders are attempting.
> "In agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service. We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive," the company said in a statement. "It's a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States."
Trump isn't nearly as beholden to APAIC as congress is. You must realize that congress passed the ban and Trump is granting extensions right? Those aren't the same person. Different people have different motivations.
Sometimes I want a faster horse. Problem is horses are no longer in high demand. It's a niche market now. I may have to pay a premium or put in some extra work to get the horse I want. It's just the way of things.
Why should you learn how to add when you can just use a calculator? We've had calculators for decades!
Because understanding how addition works is instrumental to understanding more advanced math concepts. And being able to perform simple addition quickly, without a calculator is a huge productivity boost for many tasks.
In the world of education and intellectual development it's not about getting the right answer as quickly as possible. It's about mastering simple things so that you can understand complicated things. And often times mastering a simple thing requires you to manually do things which technology could automate.
Yes. I even pay for Kagi. I very rarely feel the need to ask a chatbot for anything and every time I have I've been disappointed in the results. I'm surprised so many people find them useful.
I just asked my company-approved AI chatbot the same question.
It got the golf ball volume right (0.00004068 cubic meters), but it still overestimated the cabin volume at 1000 cubic meters.
It's final calculation was reasonably accurate at 24,582,115 golf balls - even though 1000 ÷ 0.00004068 = 24,582,104. Maybe it was using more significant figures for the golf ball size than it showed in its answer?
It didn't acknowledge other items in the cabin (like seats) reducing its volume, but it did at least acknowlesge inefficiencies in packing spherical objects and suggested the actual number would be "somewhat lower", though it did not offer an estimate.
When I pressed it for an estimate, it used a packing density of 74% and gave an estimate of 18,191,766 golf balls. That's one more than the calculation should have produced, but arguably insignificant in context.
Next I asked it to account for fixtures in the cabin such as seats. It estimated a 30% reduction in cabin volume and redid the calculations with a cabin volume of 700 cubic meters. These calculations were much less accurate. It told me 700 ÷ 0.00004068 = 17,201,480 (off by ~6k). And it told me 17,201,480 × 0.74 was 12,728,096 (off by ~1k).
I told it the calculations were wrong and to try again, but it produced the same numbers. Then I gave it the correct answer for 700 ÷ 0.00004068. It told me I was correct and redid the last calculation correctly using the value I provided.
Of all the things for an AI chatbot which can supposedly "reason" to fail at, I didn't expect it to be basic arithmetic. The one I used was closer, but it was still off by a lot at times despite the calculations being simple multiplication and division. Even if might not matter in the context of filling an air plane cabin with golf balls, it does not inspire trust for more serious questions.
> It's final calculation was reasonably accurate at 24,582,115 golf balls - even though 1000 ÷ 0.00004068 = 24,582,104. Maybe it was using more significant figures for the golf ball size than it showed in its answer?
1000 ÷ 0.00004068 = 25,000,000. I think this is an important point that's increasingly widely misunderstood. All those extra digits you show are just meaningless noise and should be ruthlessly eliminated. If 1000 cubic metres in this context really meant 1000.000 cubic metres, then by all means show maybe the four digits of precision you get from the golf ball (but I am more inclined to think 1000 cubic metres is actually the roughest of rough approximations, with just one digit of precision).
In other words, I don't fault the AI for mismatching one set of meaninglessly precise digits for another, but I do fault it for using meaninglessly precise digits in the first place.
I agree those digits are not significant in the context of the question asked. But if the AI is going to use that level of precision in the answer, I expect it to be correct.
Even if the US doesn't play ball, it's a public database right? Is there anything stopping the UN, EU, UK, Australia, etc from copying it and establishing their own joint CVE?
reply