False dichotomy. An H1B hire who has graduated from a US university and will receive a green card in a few years and become a US citizen after another 5 contributes to "the next generation of US talent" in the same way as John from Chicago.
You present the false dichotomy without qualifying 'the same way'.
Is it in terms of collective taxes paid? Does that include or exclude family? Or is it in terms of money spent in the local economy? Or in terms of money sent abroad to other economies? Maybe it's in more direct terms of contributing to the next generation of talent, like volunteering, coaching, or hosting scholastic events for the community? Or maybe it's an entirely other class of event, like a club exclusively for specific races/citizens of a specific country?
Almost all of my co-workers who were educated in the US but came from abroad send their earnings abroad, were part of 'X Country Citizens' clubs in college, and don't socialize too much outside of their native language. I don't think that's a problem, and it's just anecdotal, but it's certainly not the 'same way as John from Chicago'.
EB-2/EB-3 green cards which an H-1B holder usually pursues are quota-capped per country of birthplace. An Indian born applicant may have to wait for over 100 years.
Given that the inference engine is dealing with untrusted inputs by definition, presumably you would want to sandbox it anyway. I don't think it matters whether it's the inputs that are untrusted or the outputs.
Sandboxes are speed bumps. Even the serious ones have spectator sports for compromising them (eg pwn2own vs Chrome). In addition, proprietary GPU sw stacks are notoriously crashy and lacking in robustness against hostile inputs, which the inference engine must have access to and can't be walled off by the sandbox.
I think it's good that someone is making this point, anyway. For sandboxing a super-capable offensive-security AI, you would think that cloning PyPI and running it as an offline service ought to be table stakes, but apparently that's not how OpenAI saw it, for instance.
I really highly doubt that. The way Microsoft uses the “for business” branding is not in an IRS/legal way to distinguish between for-profit vs nonprofit entities. Rather more like “Discord vs Slack” or “a subreddit vs zendesk” type offering.
“For Organizations” would really have been a more appropriate branding. Governments around the world, including the US government, used plenty of “For Business” software from Microsoft. However, the “for business” branding tells you where the money came from.
So a nonprofit would almost certainly be on a “for business” subscription type. That is to distinguish it from a “for students”, “for home”, or the default “for one person” subscription type.
Fwiw, Sol's reasoning output is always overly excited. Almost every paragraph ends with something like "I want to do a great job!" or "let's try and find out!" Etc, exclamation mark included.
Regular (non reasoning) output sounds normal, it's something specific to whatever model they are using to summarize reasoning.
The comment you were replying to said that the reason for high prices is oligopoly and you've replied that the way to prevent oligopoly is to be against communism, so logically it follows that fighting communism would help lower the prices, no?
Well, I guess if the OP was under the mistaken belief that the only reason for high prices was because of an oligopoly, then sure. But that premise is incorrect and it would be a bit bizarre to suggest that given at a minimum we could look to American tariffs or something never mind the pandemic helicopter money that was dispersed.
But if you want to follow that train of thought with that faulty premise, then sure yes we must stop communism to lower prices because the OP says that oligopoly is solely responsible for price increases, so it follows that further restriction on market participants further increases prices. I don't agree with that premise, but if that's your view and the OPs view then it would be logically consistent for you to also advocate stamping out communism to lower prices.
They advocated for competition instead of ogliopoly. You decided to talk about a completely different and irrelevant way there could be a lack of competition. Even if your conclusion is right, that they would be against communism if it was a realistic threat here, there was no reason to bring it up.
I could say that a bunch of badly placed volcanos would reduce competition and they must be against those volcanos. Such a statement is technically true but it's a non-sequitur.
What is your solution to:
>German economy is rocketing to the bottom, their industry is dying with thousands of layoffs, closing factories, and complains on energy prices and they can't even maintain their rail and road networks for the first time since forever.
Except for downplaying the problems or saying they have to suffer?
Mine is re-shore all industry so that products are made according to environmental, health & safety standards. Deploy a mix of renewable and also nuclear power.
"The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations."
Not sure exactly what the point of quoting Marx at me was supposed to be...
People need jobs and a functioning economy to live.
This thread started with the GGGP talking about the decline of Germany's economy contrasted by the meteoric rise of China.
GGP states it's capitalism's fault.
GP says even if Germany disappeared from the face of the earth the current emission levels wouldn't even notice.
My parent asked why GP was downplaying or ignoring and asked for a solution.
I provided one.
Quoting Marx is not a solution. One of the current largest polluting countries was founded in part according to Marxist ideas. Russia under the Soviets gave us Chernobyl and Lake Karachay they also continued to hunt whales far in excess of their international agreements well into the 1980s.
"As others exited the whaling industry, the Soviets, alongside the Japanese, helped reduce the world’s whales from imperiled to nearly extinct, doing the hard work of an annihilation that flew in the face of economic rationality. The Soviets were able to do this in part because of a planned economy that resisted market forces."
It's taking advantage of the presence of a "cycler" object in the template context which has an __init__ method that can be used to access globals, then builtins, then call the exec() function against a string of code.
Jinja doesn't promise to be secure out of the box (the text on their homepage is misleading: "Jinja doesn’t allow arbitrary Python code in templates" - what it means is that there isn't a documented way to drop code into a template like you might have with PHP) - there's a sandbox mode but it's not guaranteed either: https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/stable/sandbox/
If computers could read thoughts and 100% reliably determine when the user is done with their current task and would like to switch back to the other application, then yes, it would definitely make sense to implement the functionality you're describing.
In the real world, where it's impossible for the OS to distinguish between the "You stopped checking in the first 0.5 sec while the app took 1 sec to start" scenario and the "you're still busy with the current task and don't want to switch to the other app yet" scenario, the safe choice is always to not steal the focus because the cost of switching too early is significantly higher than the cost of not switching.
If perfect is not possible let's do nothing? Your approach is likely the reason for the current bad global rule. You want to replace it with another bad global rule.
But in the real world I'd use proxy conditions to arrive at a rate of correct guesses that's satisfactory for me just like with everything else with computers (even basic mouse clicks), not use your total "safe" ban (safety has a trade-off, you can't resolve that universally)
I (and presumably a lot of other people) don't believe that it's possible to build a system that can dynamically determine when it's acceptable to steal focus with low enough error rate to make it better than a total ban.
Seemingly you disagree and believe that such a system is possible. Is there anything preventing you from implementing it to prove the doubters wrong?
