I use my elbow. It is the same recommendation as to cough to your elbow. You do not touch with your elbow on yourself or others so it is generally safe.
Unfortunately not always practical due to poorly designed handles and lock mechanisms. I usually "sacrifice" my little finger for this when I have to use my hands, with the theory that I'm much less likely to put that finger in my mouth or eye etc.
in iffy situations I use my fathers method, which is the systematic prevention of transfer, even if you must touch things or people (doctor,pathologist,forensics) in less than ideal circumstances, hard to describe, easy to demonstrate.
Your solutions are mostly to the birth issue, but i think there is an extra burden which is child rearing. The opportunity cost goes way beyond 9 months and even with both parents, raising more than one child is very demanding and the male may also be against further children. So women are not the only obstacle, males will also be.
Thanks for your comment. It looks to me that most of the people who work in engineering area express some form of understanding or give the benefit of the doubt to the situation while people from outside the field borderline call for malice in the side of BMW.
I think both are right. Engineering a modern car is really complex as you pointed out but the customer also has the right to say, "well that is what you are paid for". In the end the customer can just go to the next car brand.
I own a relatively recent BMW but it is only a mild hybrid diesel (4 year old M340D) and before I even received the car, they changed the whole engine and did not release the car until that was executed. That was done by the dealer, and i never knew what was the reason.
On the flip side of modern car engineering I once had a check engine light called the dealer and with authorization prompts on my side they were able to tell me some gas exhaust sensor was malfunctioning and I would be able to go there at my leisure, as it was not urgent. That was nice. When i bought the car I had 5 years of maintenance included and this is one of the nicest things about owning a car in modern times. They even call me when it is about time to do the maintenance asking for when I am available. I never owned top brand cars before but this is for me worth the premium so far as it is one less thing to organize.
Apart from the normal maintenance and the above I never had any issue with the car, and it is a very big difference between a 2001 Passat TDI(my youth car) or a Ford Torneo Connect(the car i am aiming to exchange for due to family reasons).
This is the rare earth minerals dumping all over again. Devalue to such a price as to make the market participants quit, so they can later have a strategic stranglehold on the supply.
This is using open source in a bit of different spirit than the hacker ethos, and I am not sure how I feel about it.
It is a kind of cheat on the fair market but at the same time it is also costly to China and its capital costs may become unsustainable before the last players fold.
> This is using open source in a bit of different spirit than the hacker ethos, and I am not sure how I feel about it.
It's a bit early to have any sort of feelings about it, isn't it? You're speaking in absolutes, but none of this is necessarily 100% true as we don't know their intentions. And judging a group of individuals intention based on what their country seems to want, from the lens of a foreign country, usually doesn't land you with the right interpretation.
Prosecutor, judge and jury? You have access to their minds to know their true intentions? This whole “deepseek is controlled by CCP” is ridiculous. If you want to know how bad the CCP is at IT, then check the government backed banks.
The way I see this, some tech teams in China have figured out that training and tuning LLMs is not that expensive after all and they can do it at a fraction of the cost. So they are doing it to enter a market previously dominated by US only players.
I mentioned this before as well, but AI-competition within China doesn’t care that much about the western companies. Internal market is huge, and they know winner-takes-it-all in this space is real.
Seriously though, our leaders are actively throwing everything and the kitchen sink into AI companies - in some vain attempt to become immortal or own even more of the nations wealth beyond what they already do, chasing some kind of neo-tech feudalism. Both are unachievable because they rely on a complex system that they clearly don't understand.
Good luck making OpenAI and Google cry uncle. They have the US government on their side. They will not be allowed to fail, and they know it.
What I appreciate about the Chinese efforts is that they are being forced to get more intelligence from less hardware, and they are not only releasing their work products but documenting the R&D behind them at least as well as our own closed-source companies do.
A good reason to stir up dumping accusations and anti-China bias would be if they stopped publishing not just the open-source models, but the technical papers that go with them. Until that happens, I think it's better to prefer more charitable explanations for their posture.
I am very curious on your definition and usage of 'fair' there, and whether you would call the LLM etc sector as it stands now, but hypothetically absent deepseek say, a 'fair market'. (If not, why not?)
The way we fund the AI bubble in the west could also be described as: "kind of cheat on the fair market". OpenAI has never made a single dime of profit.
Ah, so exactly like Uber, Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook and so on have done to the rest of the world over the last few decades then?
Where do you think they learnt this trick? Years lurking on HN and this post's comment section wins #1 on the American Hypocrisy chart. Unbelievable that even in the current US people can't recognize when they're looking in the mirror. But I guess you're disincentivized to do so when most of your net worth stems from exactly those companies and those practices.
Except domestic alternatives to the tech companies you listed were not driven out by them, they still exist today with substantial market share. American tech dominance elsewhere has more to do a lack of competition, and when competition does exist they're more often than not held at a disadvantage by domestic governments. So your counter narrative is false here.
> American tech dominance elsewhere has more to do a lack of competition,
Do you believe the lack of competition is purely because the products are superior?
US tech is now sort of like the dollar. People/countries outside the US need and want alternatives to hedge against in the event of political uncertainity but cannot do it completely for various reasons including arm twisting by the US govt.
One example is some govts and universities in the EU are trying to get rid of MS products for decades but they are unable to.
> American tech dominance elsewhere has more to do a lack of competition
If that's true, why doesn't America compete on this front against China?
> they're more often than not held at a disadvantage by domestic governments
So when the US had the policy advantage over the EU it was just the market working, but when China has the policy advantage over the US it suddenly becomes unfair?
>> they're more often than not held at a disadvantage by domestic governments
I think you misunderstood this. When domestic competitor arise against American tech, the domestic government tends to explicitly favour those competitor against American tech, placing the latter at an disadvantage.
You can see India or China or Korea or SEA where they have their own favored food delivery apps and internet services. Even in the EU the local LLM companies like Mistral are favored by local businesses for integration over OpenAI. Clearly American tech hasn't actually displaced serious domestic competitors, so the rare earths comparison fails when the USA in contrast is far more willing to let local businesses fail.
Not American and I also agree that the current big techs should be broken up by force of the state, there is a very big difference between a company becoming monopolistic due to market forces, and a company becoming monopolistic due to state strategy, intervention, backing.
Things can be bad in a spectrum and I believe it is much easier for society/state to break up a capitalistic monopoly than a state backed monopoly. To illustrate, the state has sued some of those companies and they were seriously threatened, because of competition ills. That is not the case with a state company.
And what exactly are grants then? Tariffs? All the lobbied laws that benefit specific corporations or industries? Aren't they state backed advantages?
Banks created their oligopolies and then who saved them when they fucked up?
Isn't Tesla a state backed monopoly in the USA because of grants and tariffs on external competitors? Isn't SpaceX? Yet nobody treats then as state backed.
I don't understand this necessity to put companies in a pedestal and hate on states. Capitalist propaganda I guess?
Market forces are manipulated all the time. This distinction is nonsense. Companies influence states and vice-versa.
Sometime ago I had a co-worker do this to me, pasting answers to my questions. He would paste the jira ticket to the ChatGPT(this was GPT3 time) and submit the PR. I would review it and ask questions and the answers had this typical rephrasing and persona of chatgpt. I had no proof, so one day i just used the PR and my comments as a prompt. The answers the co-worker gave me were almost the same down to the word as what ChatGPT gave me. I told my team I would not be available to review his changes anymore and that I would rather just have the ticket outright.
This. Choose your destiny:
1. Take time to review the code, post it to the author with knowing that nobody and nothing is going to learn from it except for you doing his job for feeding new prompts
2. Take ownership of the branch and fix the AI code
3. Read through the code to get some learning out of it if possible, close the PR and write your own
Rousseau and Hobbes were just two dudes. I'd wager neither of them cracked the code entirely.
To claim that addicts have no responsibility for their addiction is as absurd as the idea that individual humans can be fully identified separate from the society that raised them or that they live in.
Yes, if someone sets a passcode and then forgets it, they will be locked out forever and lose all of their files. There is no way to prove physical ownership of the device, pretty mich the passcode proves who the owner is.
> This trend of countries declaring that everyone on the planet is under their jurisdiction if they mail something there (or respond to a network request) is bananas
I disagree.
Imagine I ban health potions in my realm. I am running a Darwininistic experiment to make my people the most resilient people of the world and I want them to succeed through survival of the fittest. I tolerate non magical medicine but anything else will pay 1000% duties or be confiscated. A merchant comes by with a delivery of health potions to "Johnathan Man". The guards point to the "Survival of the ssssttttrrroooong" banner, while the merchant throws a fit saying she has a very powerful uncle that just happens to be a known warlord. The guards laugh, close the gates and go back inside for another pushup context. Meanwhile Johnathan and the merchant complain things about jurisdiction to no one in particular.
I have no idea what you're even trying to say here. Australia is welcome to try and confiscate goods that are mailed without paying sales tax, but we both know they lack the ability to actually execute that. And their ability to do anything about digital sales is basically non-existent.
So if I'm understanding your analogy correctly, the guards can't really do anything, so the merchant and the buyer will be the ones going about their business.
I had the same issue and now I have a much calmer job I can actually be a stabilising force home.
I crave for my side projects and as soon as I get invested and want to pump code and deliver I notice myself being irritable and a piece of crap person. Since I became aware of it I just stop my side projects as soon as I notice it. I am sadly resigned that I am unable to accomplish everything I want. I am relaxed and happy in everything else though.
There is no trick, but a choice: one’s family or ideas of accomplishment. I wish I could do better but I feel much happier when my family is happy then when I accomplish my technical goals mostly small things in the big picture.
Another important point is that obsessive energy was profitable and now I can live slower without much financial limitation for all our family.
I changed mostly to an engineering support role and less of a development role, in an area I find myself very proficient at, maybe even slightly overqualified.
The company has someone who can rely on when a customer needs help (although I never had to be on-call, I am flexible with timezones), and I often can deliver as it is inside my experience. When it does not work out my company has my back and is respectful of family life.
reply