Is there a way to have unread items go in an archive instead of disappearing? Sometimes I find insightful to re-look at the titles of things I've saved, even if I don't read them. It brings me back the why I saved it and it always unlocks some thought.
This might not be entirely true. People were able to fetch urls and data from the internet that couldn't possibly be in any training dataset (in eg posted the same day for the first time).
This actually shows perfectly how convincing ChatGTP can be. The author is too eager to believe the output from ChatGTP, even though this should be a clear indicator something else is happening:
> But ChatGPT has rewritten my article in a different style, what a interesting finding…
The URL conveniently contains the topic of the blog-article, meaning ChatGTP can 'hallucinate' the contents, even without internet connection.
To show this, I tried to follow the same steps as @neonforge, but with a non-existing URL. Unfortunately `lynx` 'didn't work', but curl showed some interesting information.
`curl https://medium.com/@peter/learn-how-to-use-the-magic-of-terr...` returned some html. Instead of a 404 and a <title> element containing just 'Medium' it hallucinated the following title tag: `<title>Learn How to Use the Magic of Terraform Locals (Step-by-Step Guide) | by Peter | Medium</title>`
I'm not saying that ChatGTP definitely has no access to internet, but so far I have not seen any proof or indication that it does.
I don't think this shows at all that ChatGPT can access the internet? It looks like ChatGPT was given a URL with a title and hallucinated a blog post based on that title. The author then brushes it off as 'written in a different style', when it just looks like a totally different article overall (or maybe it's testament to the fact that too many Medium articles are low quality and indistinguishable from the output of a LLM!)
If anything, this blog post is a perfect example about how people can put in whatever they want as an input and take the output as truth, without any rigorous approach about what would count as a true fact about the model.
That article is bunkum. There’s not the slightest reason to believe that it “rewrote his article in a different style”: it hallucinated a completely different article based on the URL. The other “proof” is all clearly wildly inconsistent and hallucinated: it’s a desktop machine, a server, inside Google in I think France, in the USA, in AWS, in Germany, and I think the last couple of “tests” don’t make sense anyway.
It convinced him of what he wanted to believe. He didn’t do a very good job of testing.
Except no party is doing this, but very capitalist firms in an attempt to appeal to new segments, to refresh their brand and to be on the news with their products. They follow a trend to fortify their business, that's it.
The fallacy of your argument is that it somehow implies some coordinated attempt by some kind of obscure force that is conspiring to control society. That's no different than other conspiracy theories.
I don't see how Bitcoin can fix terrible customer support issues. The problem here is that either:
a) OP is stuck in a cycle where he's inquiries are managed by bots and no human is actually verifying the claims.
b) OP breached the terms in a serious way and UpWork is not being transparent as of why they are deleting his account.
UpWork offers a lot of services for both freelancers and clients (escrow, payment protection, guarantees, etc), that's why they handle the money and keep them on platform until the job are completed. Freelancers know that they will get paid if they get the job done, while clients know that they money are safe if the freelance doesn't deliver. It's a trusted middleman. I don't see how bitcoin can solve any of these issues.
I usually spend around 20hr on the test task they give me. On top of this there are at least 3/4 rounds of interview (spanning from half an hour to two hours).
I tend to make sure that the job actually exists though and I'm wary of small companies. I'm particularly avoiding the ones where I would be the only developer working on my domain/stack.
I haven't checked the dates. But going by varying best-by dates, some of them must be older than few days. Ofc, I use so few I always go with the longest available date as such the freshest.
I really wish I could see the reactions to this tweet in a parallel universe where it was not written by a woman with died hairs. I have a hunch that the disagreement wouldn't come with personal attacks and judgments on OP's character.
Maybe I don't know how Twitter works, but I didn't manage to find a single personal attack or judgement on her character from the Tweet replies or from the comments here. The responses were rather on the contrary, enforcing her view with some anecdotal testimonies etc. This is a bit surprising given the provoking nature of her initial comment (calling peoples engineering roles bullshit)..
I'm sorry you couldn't find them. Here are some comments with personal attacks and judgements that I found on this very comment section here on HN:
> Have some humility with your cheap box dye, ugh
> When I see this kind of attitude I know that this person is burned out and needs to find something new to do.
> So, no offense, but get the fuck over yourself or find a new job.
> Yeah, when you start to describe your daily work with words like "burden", you're usually not in a good mental state.
> The Twitter OP sounds like someone that’s a bit full of themselves and struggles to see other perspectives—-a core skill to be a broadly respected leader.
> Toxic attitude. I hope to hell to not work with someone like that.
These are either attacks or judgements of her character, based on a single statement (or opinion if they actually went to read the entire thread).
One thing is to say "you are wrong" and another is to say "you are wrong and burned out/mentally unstable/full of yourself/unable to be a leader/toxic".
Again, I would be very curious if I would find these kind of remarks in a parallel universe where this thread was not posted by a woman with dyed hairs. Bias is a real thing and the fact that she's actually wrong in this instance doesn't make bias justified or less problematic.
Why go to a parallel universe? I thought it was an uninteresting stale rant and didn't know it was written by a woman nor that she had dyed hair until you just told me.
It would have been more interesting if any of the comments had brought up Christopher Alexander's observations from, I think it was, the timeless way of building....
So Google owns the IP but doesn't support the maintainers that do all the work and keep it running. They take the credit, the value of the brand and do nothing.
Can't the maintainers do a fork, continue their work with a new name and then maybe start a foundation or something to attract money and support it? Fastlane is a very mission critical piece of software for many companies, I'm sure some of them would support it if it's an indie project and not a Google property.
In practice it means that development work still happens, and, and prebuilt redist binaries still get made, but only in countries that don't recognize software patents.
