Oh it's just partisan political bullshit you say? Enjoy your low crime rate in SF then. Just the other day Bob Lee got stabbed to death near SoMa but oh no it's just the repubs spinning the news for their gain!
I am sure that SF could claim a cow is a chicken and write it into the local laws as such. However, convincing people outside of your city limits that cows are really chickens is a tad more difficult.
Why would I waste my time convincing someone who doesn’t live here that the things they believe about my city are incorrect? If you don’t like it, don’t come here.
I have been there several times recently and quite a few times in the last 30 years. What I believe about your city comes from what I have seen myself, so even if you did try to convince me you would not be successful.
My first read of your comment was really confusing, because the article posted reporting on the invented scandal is _also_ a Washington Post article....
It doesn't combat this at all. The Internet is stuffed with keyword filled nonsense articles with long meandering intros due to their search algorithms flaws. Low quality is the standard
Have you used chatGPT? At least bing's version? It adds links right there too.
So when you prod it, you're not doing so "for the truth" (you also don't prod "for the truth" in general...), you're getting it to generate more information and potentially relevant sources.
I just did it. I asked for an argument about x, then prompted for counter opinions about the same subject - both times different links were added.
In the end, it's up to you to validate sources provided.
You have zero context in ChatGPT though. Like even if you don’t know or have an opinion about a specific website you’ll eventually form one if you keep accessing it.
This is a huge downside of GPT. Until it starts citing it’s exact sources it can’t be a reliable tool in most cases.
I think we need to be more clear than clever about this. ChatGPT seems to have made up a false claim on sexual harassment, it had no known antecedent articles discussing this, it wasn't like say Harvey Weinstein for whom there were lots of people saying he'd abused them before the court conviction. This person who was accused by chatgpt didn't have an undercurrent of claims. Right?
Yeah but it's important to understand why it's down 20%. Some commenters are acting like this was 100% irrational panic and SVB didn't do anything wrong, it's just too bad they couldn't hold out for awhile.
What they actually did was put 40% of their deposits into a long term bond that would start paying a shit rate if interest rates went up. The invested money is borrowed from depositors so the only thing they really "own" is the interest. In order to keep depositors in a high interest environment it will require paying out some amount of interest too. But they have locked themselves in to gains at a now small interest rate.
This was a risky bet for the bank from the start and there's absolutely no way they would make the trade they did if they knew interest rates would go up, even if they also had a guarantee that there would not be a bank run. This isn't a simple liquidity crisis or even somebody trying to stay solvent until their GameStop puts pay off.
They can easily provide a feature where the employee could flip a switch and temporarily (semi?) hide herself, signaling that she is currently occupied with something else. Yes, in a Zoom setting, she doesn't have to broadcast that. But that's just cheating.
> They can easily provide a feature where the employee could flip a switch and temporarily (semi?) hide herself, signaling that she is currently occupied with something else.
That's like saying "you could just start doing something else" during an in-person meeting. We all decided that's not ok, so why would we be granted an exception in a VR setting ?
Yes the whole point of VR is to command your entire attention the same way as if you were physically in a room. The pro-VR crowd (basically limited to anyone getting paid to work on it for Meta) thinks this will replicate the benefits of in-person work. Everyone else sees it as replicating the drawbacks of in-person work.
This top comment is odd, in the sense that the article does not talk about TikTok's privacy and/or geopolitics debacles at all, even though the title "poison pill" might lead some users who didn't read the article to think it refers to TikTok's violation of privacy, or it being created and controlled by an Internet giant based in Communist China, or something along these lines.
The "poison pill" in the title actually refers to TikTok's recommendation model that disregards (or at least de-weights) social graph, versus Facebook/Instagram's approach.
