Because at that time an engineering degree still had some weight because not everyone can get it. This inflation 9f degrees caused the degrees to have way less value only for the next generation
Croatia is having its "bully" tourism phase. They have been historically super cheap and undiscovered location up until 5-10 years ago and now that they are in EU and Schengen and it's actually nicer than some bigger mediterranean countries everyone started piling in. The locals which aren't really business savvy started doubling/tripling prices to see how far it can go without providing additional services or raising the quality to another level. From business perspective it does make actual sense since last few seasons after corona have been breaking records every year. Until there are actual consequences for raising per night booking prices from 100€ to 200€ from year to year nothing will change. I think that the reality is that people "in the know" like polish/chech families are being priced out because traditionally they didn't have as many western european tourists like Dutch or French and now it's on their radar
Right, but that was mostly the issue of all the former Yugoslavia nations.
Czechs 1) were not a part of Yugoslavia 2) have a long tradition of visiting the Adriatic sea.
They are not poor anymore, and can afford it.
The price increase in Croatia in the last few years is insane, especially near the tourist spots (= seaside). Czech people who want to save some money now usually turn to the other Balkan countries that are still quite cheap.
Last time I visited Croatia the summer two years before adopting EUR and all hospitality services wanted EUR. When I requested prices in kuna they were dismissive with "just convert from EUR to kuna in Google". I could easily spend less money while in Italy, Spain, or Greece. They aspire to place themselves as Switzerland of Adriatic, mostly for Germanic speaking tourists. Who wouldn't want to charge Swiss prices, duh. I say good luck Croats!
I have no doubt that Google is waiting for more adoption before starting to cut costs everywhere and before you know it your puked out ride will direct you to www.waymo.hr/help to find an article which resolves your issue
Uber has partner drivers which have their own companies, their own rating, and can be punished for their behaviour. Once a company completely vertically integrates (like Google would like), meaning they have their own cars, they no longer want to punish themselves for bad behaviour/cars. Since they have to choose between short term cost of higher maintenance fee or long term cost of loss of quality of service their managers will start to optimize for quarterly results: cutting short term costs. What they want is to first entrench the market, push out competitors, introduce complex regulation and fees which prevents new competitors into the market and then start cutting costs everywhere they can and increase prices.
Since you mention Uber, I can definitely see in my city how the quality of cars decreased and they started using almost inclusively cheap immigrants who realistically couldn't pass a drivers exam in my country and have on multiple occasions driven into wrong directions/ran red lights etc.
Pixel phones? Nest? The Bayview hotel rooms are pretty nice. Hell even Gmail feels pretty premium to me, but I guess this word might be considered subjective.
Also, Waymo isn't even Google. You might accuse me of overstating this, but truthfully they operate as a different company.
Pixel phones have less of a brand than Samsung, much less Apple (not talking about actual product quality, just brand positioning). Nest doesn't stand out, although I don't think any of the smart home things are really established enough to know which are good or bad. I've never heard of the Bayview hotel rooms. Gmail is good but it's not a "premium" feel.
Yup. Plus, if Waymo can clean its cars with greater efficiency at lower cost than Uber can, then all other things being equal, Waymo will have cleaner cars.
The drivers are not the same people who activate their account.
There are schemes where undocumented immigrants ask someone to activate their account on their behalf. In practice, the person giving you a ride could be literally anyone.
Uber doesn't really have a way to increase profit through messier cars. But they can do things like increase prices after taking over a market, which they have not been at all shy about doing.
> Uber doesn't really have a way to increase profit through messier cars
Don't they? Allowing messier, older, and less pleasant cars would increase the supply of drivers, allowing Uber to place lower bids on those drivers, lower their prices, increase volume and revenue, and increase profit.
They can definitely have more beat up cars which over time I can observe in my city. As for prices, luckily they have a lot stronger competition with bolt and local taxi apps as creating a local taxi app is really not that hard
Isn’t that taken the analogy too literally? You’re saying nature is promoting humans to generate the next token to be outputted? What about all the other organisms that don’t have language? How do you distinguish nature prompts from nature training datasets? What makes you think nature is tokenized? What makes you think language generation is fundamental to biology?
I would imagine the baseline assumption of your thinking is that things like sleep and emotions are a 'bug' in terms of cognition (or at the very least, 'prompts' that are optional).
Said differently, the assumption is that with the right engineer, you could reach human-parity cognition with a model that doesn't sleep or feel emotions (after all what's the point of an LLM if it gets tired and doesn't want to answer your questions sometimes? Or even worse knowingly deceives you because it is mad at you or prejudiced against you).
The problem with that assumption is that as far as we can tell, every being with even the slightest amount of cognition sleeps in some form and has something akin to emotional states. As far as we can prove, sleep and emotions are necessary preconditions to cognition.
A worldview where the 'good' parts of the brain (reasoning and logic) are replicated in LLM but the 'bad' parts (sleep, hunger, emotions, etc.) are not is likely an incomplete model.
Ah a very fun 'snippy' question that just proves my point further. Thank you.
No airplanes do not sleep. That's part of why their flying is fundamentally different than birds'.
You'll likely also notice that birds flap their wings while planes use jet engines and fixed wings.
My entire point is that it is foolish to imagine airplanes as mechanical birds, since they are in fact completely different and require their own mental models to understand.
This is analogous to LLMs. They do something completely different than what our brains do and require their own mental models in order to understand them completely.
Here, it's actually fun to respond to your comment in another way, so let's try this out:
Yes, sleep is in fact a prerequisite to planes flying. We have very strict laws about it actually. Most planes are only able to fly because a human (who does sleep) is piloting it.
The drones and other vehicles that can fly without pilots were still programmed by a person (who also needed sleep) FWIW.
I own one of each, and develop for the Vision Pro through my job, it's the very same story it's always been. Apple hasn't 'invented' much here, but the magic is in how it's assembled, even in its current state, using apps in a 3d space feels better than anything the quest has ever done. Even simple things like 'touching' a panel just feels more natural on the vision pro than the same experience on the quest, mostly because the quest does things like forcing the ghost hand to stop at the surface of the window, instead of continuing to track your hand through it and just using the intersection as the touch point. It's a small difference in the interaction that makes a world of difference in usability, which Apple is very good at.
"Fair" has many meanings. If there are 2 brothers, one super intelligent and the other retarded, should the smart one keep all his money for himself and the dumb one die from starvation since he is not capable of sustaining himself? The smart one got his gift for free and although maybe he didn't waste it while he could have, the retarded one didn't have equal starting ground.
The difference I see between US/EU worldview is that in US the biggest emphasis is in what "YOU" did, disregarding luck, chance, environment factors etc. "Bill Gates created the wealth himself". People like feeling like there is a chance for them to become super powerful and important and that there is no system holding you back, even though they never actually do it but the hope/idea is very important for you. I can see this in Eastern Europe where large percentage of people dream of winning the lottery; I guess that is something from which people here draw hope of power and influence, while the same people are ok with strong social measures, high taxes, free healthcare etc. while I feel in US all these social benefits are perceived to prevent people from achieving astronomical results and hence shouldn't be.
I'd say it's like this for any older game which still has a multiplayer community regardless of genre. There just isn't a big influx of new players and the bad ones give up.
That may be the case but other genres, such as shooters (first and third person), have found ways to get around it. Fortnite, for example, has nowhere near this issue whereas Quake 3 is plagued by it. The 100-player battle royale structure of Fortnite is one mechanism I think helps to mitigate the problem of overwhelming skill gap.
This kind of thing hasn't really been tested in RTS games, which usually focus on 1v1s.
Fortnite's solution has been bots, which is not very popular because plenty of people think they're above bots. Or think that bots cheat (which is true in Starcraft). Or in fighting games, they don't play like humans so you end up learning bad habits.
The big issue with bots is that they are almost never good enough to beat a moderately skilled and muscle-memoried human player. People who try to use them to learn don't end up being any better than a n00b, as it were.
They didn't cheat on sc2 did they? They did in sc1. But regardless, with the breakthroughs in AI recently, I don't think they'd need to cheat on a hypothetical sc3.
I know in SC2 the harder AI would get free resources.
I think "playing like a human" can still be an issue depending on the game. Until people want to play against AIs, there's not a lot of work put into making AIs human-like rather than just AI players.
reply