It’s not that it’s unreasonable to think the word “patty” is ambiguous —it’s that it’s unreasonable to spend tax dollars on saving people from that ambiguity
> it’s unreasonable to spend tax dollars on saving people from that ambiguity
I quite appreciate the taxpayer funded regulation of technical terms - I like being able to buy ice cream at the store and know if it's "ice cream" or "frozen dessert". Or "cream cheese" vs "cream cheese product". Or many other similar things.
The Jamaican patty and fish sauce ones are problematic, but also happened 25-40 years ago.
In Ontario, "Frozen Treat" and "Ice Cream", "Orange Juice" and "Orange Drink" are on shelves often right beside eachother with nearly identical packaging. I only noticed the latter when I saw one was significantly cheaper, at first thought it was pulp/no pulp.
Do you have an encyclopedic knowledge of which terms are regulated and which ones aren't?
Don't you think it would cause more confusion if people expecting to buy a Jamaican beef patty instead have to buy a "Jamaican beef-inside-pastry product" ?
>Do you have an encyclopedic knowledge of which terms are regulated and which ones aren't?
Do you have an encyclopedic knowledge of which professions are regulated and which aren't? If not, should we get rid of professional licensing?
>Don't you think it would cause more confusion if people expecting to buy a Jamaican beef patty instead have to buy a "Jamaican beef-inside-pastry product" ?
This feels like a strawman given that they settled on "Jamaican patty", which is reasonably brief and certainly less confusing than the original term of just "beef patty".
> Do you have an encyclopedic knowledge of which terms are regulated and which ones aren't?
The solution is to ensure all common terms people expect in a daily shopping are covered. Thus why "beef patty" was covered. Sounds like you agree with the government on this one. Not covering it would make it confusing for people who would then need to keep track of which common terms are covered and which are not. Its a bit silly at times but as you noted yourself the alternative is even worse.
Try it without "reasoning". As you can see in my example (and GP), it meanders to correctness eventually after emphatically being wrong, and most reasoning modes hide that from you.
If LLMs worked the way people want to believe they do, there’d be no reason to start in the wrong place — a computer should have the facts!
It has more character because it’s lower, has sharper, sportier lines, and more refined shape. Also the frontend just has a pleasant retro-futuristic design (as does the rest of the car). This ferrari, besides having none of ferrari dna, is an amorphous blob, high off the ground, and all the lines screaming family crossover. Even if someone likes the design, which I don’t doubt there are people that do, it’s objectively a worse looking sports car than the Hyundai mentioned above.
More subjectively speaking, the Luce’s frontend also just does not flow nicely together. It almost feels weird for the sake of being contrarian, to show how much it’s not tied to a „regular” car shape, due to being an EV. You can design a car from the ground up for the sake of being an EV and not have it look… like that
Taxes are supposed to pay for public services. An efficient visa system is a public service. If you pay tons of taxes but don’t get a public service that’s personally very important to you, it’s natural to feel let down
To convert that figure to a more relatable number: the surface area of the Earth is just about 197 million square miles. With such an error I'm having a hard time trusting the article content.
Technically, if you're measuring surface area, it' important to remember that the earth is not a sphere. There's a bit of a paradox measuring shorelines: the shorter your ruler, the longer it gets, because you're able to capture more complex features. Pethaps the authors took an extremely precise measurement of the surface of Estonia, counting everything down to the sinus cavities of dogs sleeping in alleys...
Can you explain this more? It seems trivial to extrude a 2d coastline along a third dimension to produce a paradoxical areal calculation corresponding precisely to the perimeter paradox...
If you extrude a coastline into a wall the wall's surface area will blow up the same way the measured perimeter does, but that;s because you've turned a boundary-length problem into the area of a different object. It still doesn't mean the country's ordinary map area becomes paradoxical, the extra boundary detail only affects a vanishingly thin strip near the edge, so the enclosed 2D area stays well behaved.
Aha, so you've misunderstood my joke entirely. We agree about the math, please reread my original comment with the understanding that I'm insinuating that the article has deviated from "ordinary map area" and is instead measuring the fractal surface area contained within Estonia's perimeter.
[now that the joke is explained, feel free to laugh]
Some people are just oblivious to six orders of magnitude mistakes, and then go off about "folly, mistake, calamitous hubris, neglect, and plain stupidity" ...
Assuming this is about Harju, it seems the author read "245 million sq m" and assumed the m was miles, not metres.
So the already large 24,500 hectare farm became a ludicrous 245 million square mile multi-planetary behemoth.
Reading sq m as square miles is a surprisingly common error in the US, but usually gets caught before production or publication because the result is orders of magnitude out.
Quoted straight from the piece, as written by dude who just made one of the smallest countries around have abandoned farms larger than the whole world ...
But many people are really like this, no notion whatsoever of order of magnitude plausibility. Has to be beaten out of engineering students, but I suppose the majority of the population is untreated.
My version of that is to just use a (high-end) Chromebook. The OS never gets in the way, can’t remember the last time I had to change a system setting or manually upgrade anything
Ironically the UX on Reuters and AP wasn’t hugely worse than the blogspam:
* the text of the blogspam is pretty faithful to the AP article
* Reuters had a fullscreen paywall
* the AP had a floating video ad and an interstitial you have to click to get below the fold
