I'm going to blow your mind: people are different! I have lived in several cities in the PNW and New England and now live in Houston metro by choice. It is far easier, more efficient, and more economical for my family which are our priorities. (Also infinitely more diverse, which is a big plus, but doesn't really have anything to do with urban planning). We like it a lot here.
Houston can be very cheap, but it comes with the steep cost of having to live in Houston.
I'm being harsh, Houston isn't completely terrible. There is a lot of culture and diversity. But you can't really get to it because everything is too far, and you're already tired from commuting 10 hours that week.
IMO that is different than rank-and-file. My theory is that once you make a certain amount of money you run a high risk of becoming divorced from reality.
> Yes, a tired doctor sucks. But a tired doctor who already has the patient's state loaded into their head may still be better than doctor who is completely fresh in both senses.
AI fixes this. Imagine the boot time of loading a patient's state from dozens of labs and files vs. a summary that gets you to exactly what they're going to end up remembering anyways. And if a doctor finds something interesting that the AI doesn't flag, they should be flagging it in the chart for the next doctor anyways.
In my experience, AI summarization is a pretty lame application. I don’t really need a block of potentially wrong, rephrased text. I’ve got a feeling that the same applies to healthcare.
I’m not super familiar with moon, but I think it’d be fair to say mise started out solving the tool problem where moon solved the build problem first. I’d expect both to be more fleshed out than the other in both departments.
You could probably use mise tools for moon builds, or proto with mise tasks too if you wanted to.
We probably are the study..."we presented the Michigan Fish Study to online communities to see which part of the click bait they fixated on the most..."
Not just the scientific replication crisis, but also the scientific media replication crisis.
For all of the p-hacking and file drawer effects that modern research (noting this is an older piece) tries to avoid, the incentives for popular scientific media including blog posts all run in the other direction. Even if limited to just good, replicable studies in journals, anything we hear about via popularization is likely to be attached to a stronger-than-real effect size.
Me too -- I reacted this way when I read it, and posted it here to see if others would agree or if there was some nuance I was missing. In particular I bristle at this frequent juxtaposition of the US and Japan (or "East" vs "West" more broadly) in terms of individualism and collectivism -- those terms aren't well defined enough to not be misleading, and might convey truth in some cases but better specificity would help us avoid wrongheaded generalizations based on old tropes and stereotypes
It makes sense to me that there would be differences in how people with various cultural backgrounds interpret art, since we largely know that the way people experience and think about color is different, though
It's also funny to see US vs Japan as a stand-in for East vs West, because eg Japan and China have very different cultures; and eg Germany and the US also have their differences. (Or Chile and the US, if you want to stay far in the West.)
We don't invest in ideas, we invest in founders. That's why OpenAI partnered with Y Combinator to bring you investments at the pre-founder stage.
We'll invest in your baby even before it's born! Simply accept our $10,000 now, and we'll own 30% of what your child makes in its lifetime. The womb is a hostile environment where the fetus needs to fight for survival, and a baby that actually manages to be born has the kind of can-do attitude and fierce determination and grit we're looking for in a founder.
> And what about all the other stuff that LLM's spit out? Who owns that. Well at present, no one. If you train a monkey or an elephant to paint, you cant copyright that work because they aren't human, and neither is an LLM.
This seems too cute by half, courts are generally far more common sense than that in applying the law.
This is like saying using `rails generate model:example` results in a bunch of code that isn't yours, because the tool generated it according to your specifications.
> courts are generally far more common sense than that in applying the law.
'The Board’s decision was later upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which rejected the applicant’s contention that the AI system itself should be acknowledged as the author, with any copyrights vesting in the AI’s owner. The court further held that the CO did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the application, reiterating the requirement that copyright law requires human authorship and that copyright protection does not extend to works “generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand, as plaintiff urges here.”' From: https://www.whitefordlaw.com/news-events/client-alert-can-wo...
The court is using common sense when it comes to the law. It is very explicit and always has been... That word "human" has some long standing sticky legal meaning (as opposed to things that were "property").
The example is a real legal case afaik, or perhaps paraphrased from one (don’t think it was a monkey - an ape? An elephant?).
I’d guess the legal scenario for `rails generate` is that you have a license to the template code (by way of how the tool is licensed) and the template code was written by a human so licensable by them and then minimally modified by the tool.
I think you're thinking of this case [1], it was a monkey, it wasn't a painting but a selfie. A painting would have only made the no-copyright argument stronger.
I don’t think the code you get from rails generate is yours. Certainly not by way of copyright, which protects original works of authorship and so if it’s not original, it’s not copyrightable, and yes it’s been decided in US courts that non-human-authorship doesn’t count as creative.
I was so confused by the "no airborne transmission" theory because it seems naive - like you'd need a lot of evidence to convince me that it wasn't the case given the fundamentals of viruses.
reply