> I would honestly love to see government involvement
Is not a phrase you should use lightly... government involvement in anything is rife for mismanagement. At its reduction, a domain name is an agreement between people to use X address for Y purpose. What would this power even mean?
Agreement between what people exactly? The domain name system is definitionally hierarchical: ICANN, TLDs, registrars, customers. Nobody is "arranging" anything, it's a top-down system.
The entire internet was built on public funds. The very reason why Verisign has exclusive control over .com and .net is a 1993 contract [1] with the National Science Foundation (or rather InterNIC [2], the successor of Defense Data Network NIC and predecessor of ICANN). They gave them this monopoly on the condition they pay 30% into a public fund, but the court ruled it an illegal tax.
Do they add any extra value, aside from hijacking DNS with their ad pages [0]? Do they have any meaningful competitors? Can you make your own TLD and enter this market? What would be different if ICANN managed domain registrations itself, without the intermediary, short of having more checks and balances stopping them from milking their customers dry? Your government didn't need to sell all public roads to a monopoly to figure out how to tax them.
Environment as well. In terms of "safety" it is unfortunately very risky to bike (or even walk) in my area due to the sprawling roads everywhere. Drivers don't look out for anything other than large boxes, and I've quickly had way too many close calls to consider it useful.
For the first interview that you get an offer, what exactly do you tell them to keep them from moving on to someone else?
Most don't extend employment offers out for months in my experience, or at least they really try to get you to agree off the bat. I imagine someone job searching is getting an interview once a week or so. Several times, I've had delays of weeks to months after just submitting an application to get the interview. So how do you just have multiple offers to juggle at any one time?
You plan about 4-6 weeks and communicate early on that you are talking to several companies, and that you plan on evaluating offers on X date. Companies will shuffle things around to meet your date if you give them time. If they aren't flex you don't want to work for them anyway.
Great. Hire them, I will go work for someone who gives the same respect that they expect.
People like you are the ones who grumble that it's hard to find good employees, or have to deal with "bad hires". I've built up and staffed teams for a long time and I understand that the best employees sometimes need flexibility. Because the good ones are all going and working for people who want to treat them like adults and understand that the person doing the hiring is just as disposable as the people attempting to be hired.
If timelines don't line up, you just say they don't line up and go your separate ways. No harm no foul.
You are hiring a cog to fit in the machine then, nothing more.
And that's fine for some people who are just "passing through" with no concept of ownership of anything. A lot of people probably.
But you're also going to miss out on people that take extreme ownership of success and failure that have really dedicated themselves to various crafts over their life and career.
You will never, ever, ever get the performance and gains by hiring a cog compared to hiring a craftsman.
This isn't necessarily true. You can hand craft a highly independent and empowered team at a large company (pets not cattle), and still have hundreds of candidates to sift through. At JPL, we did this. We were very careful about hiring, but did have many, many qualified candidates to choose from.
But I will say, we were also careful to accommodate candidate schedules as much as possible, but yes, we did pass on folks who were asking for significantly more than others. It's a balancing game.
It's kind of like how when selling a house your optimal strategy is rarely to try to appeal to the most people. Instead, modifications which greatly increase perceived value in a smaller subset (so long as it isn't too small for your personal goals) will alienate most customers but still increase the sale value in the same timespan.
When you're applying for jobs, some companies aren't willing to play that game, and if you're playing it then that's not just fine; it's ideal. You don't waste your time on companies who won't play ball. Enough will that the strategy still works.
In terms of modifying the house it depends on your local market. The general observation is that something making the house "special" tends to drive the price up rather than down. E.g., radiant heating via floor circulation can be seen as risky and novel, but enough people care that it tends to be profitable. Similarly with "risky" amenities like a backyard walking path. The location determines what a normal house is, so specifics vary wildly, but targeting a large enough sub-market is almost always better than "targeting" a wider market.
100x more inefficient than a human in only food is pretty efficient. Consider that humans in the developed world spend far more in energy on heating/AC, transportation, housing, lawn care, refrigeration, washers and dryers, etc, and an LLM can probably be several factors more efficient.
I don't really understand the critique of GPT-4 in particular. GPT-4 cost >$100 Million to train. But likely less than 1 billion. Even if they pissed out $100 million in pure greenhouse gases, that'd be a drop in the bucket compared to, say 1/1000 of the US military's contributions
Maybe this wasn't here when you looked at it, but maybe try Python 3.11?
> We developed and tested Chatterbox on Python 3.11 on Debain 11 OS; the versions of the dependencies are pinned in pyproject.toml to ensure consistency.
Algorithmic? Big-O? Polynomially? Linear improvement? O(n^2) to O(n)? Or if you want to be less mathematically precise: enormous improvement?
Using exponential in this way in any context is a faux pas, because it's highly ambiguous, and requires context for clarification. But in this situation the context clearly resolved to the mathematically accurate definition, except it was used in the other way.
Quadratically doesn't have the same punch because it is actually exponentially less than exponentially. So doing it for extra punch (as opposed to not knowing the correct word) in a technical context would just be lying. It'd be like a paper saying they had a result with p less than one in a trillion for "extra punch" when they actually had p=0.1.
If you just mean "a lot" in a non-technical sense, there are plenty of words available. enormously. immensely. tremendously. remarkably. incredibly. vastly.
Is an awful feature. Pretty much never have I wanted to search the internet using that bar, and the only time I do it's because I made a typo or pressed enter too soon and the search ranked some internet search above mine.
You also can't easily disable it. This is a win for Linux
They want to mention AI to boost interest and such, and they end up mentioning AI risks to hedge/cover their backs