> If it really was "just a complex situation", you would expect equal percentages of simple and complicated cases for regular joes and huge corporations, no?
Obviously not. Regular joes almost always have relatively simple situations relative to multinational corporations, otherwise they wouldn't be regular joes.
Can you explain the obviousness? Other than a lot of money being involved, what makes it "obvious" that the way corporations break the rules is more complex than the way natural persons break the rules?
What makes it obvious or inherent that a corporation breaks the law at some edge case of the law that requires a lot of time and detail and multiple lawyers to figure out, and not so for a random guy? I think you are confusing money with complexity.
I don't see how a person modifying their car in their garage is a more complex way of breaking the law than WV making cars so they cheat emissions tests. This is not about the complexity of engineering, or the complexity of logistics. Those things do not matter. What matters is whether the law was broken or not, and what the just penalty is. It is not at all obvious to me the way VW did it is more complex. You just claim it without any supporting evidence or argument.
Still relevant, as it means that a coding agent is more likely to get things right without searching. That saves time, money, and improves accuracy of results.
Citation needed for the idea that zero is the optimal price for public benefit. Among other issues, I expect medication compliance would be higher when the patient has to pay for the medication.
I think we probably have data on that (at least in general). That is assuming people react to out-of-pocket payments, and not to how much their insurance or the NHS etc is paying.
I’m not a celebrity or superstar, and I’ve successfully used his techniques several times. The very first time it resulted in $20k improvement over the initial salary offer. Another time it resulted in an additional $40k in signing bonus.
Most recently it resulted in a modest $5k boost to the offered salary.
But the level of success you are likely to experience entirely depends on the alternatives that you have and the alternatives they have.
(I should also note that I’ve never been located anywhere like SF.)
I ran into this as well, but now I have given standing instructions for the llm to pull the latest RR docs anytime it needs to work with RR. That has solved the entire issue.
> Why wouldn’t you put your inputs in a form element?
Not all inputs are form-submission data.
For example a datalist-backed input to scroll to a specific page/chapter/section/subsection in a long document. You might populate the datalist with hundreds of entries so you don't have a long list of links that the user will have to scroll through in the sidebar. You can perform the scroll on the change event of the input.
That's a good UI for the user, instead of presenting a long list of links for the user to browse/search through, they simply have the input auto-suggest based on the populated datalist.
I mainly work on a large complex SPA with UX that does not often look like a form, but does have lots of inputs. These days I'm much bigger on semantic HTML, to the small extent it matters in our case, but there is a large burden of pages which were just div soup and loose inputs.
In a sense, Harry Potter is the worst when it comes to class divide.
What let the kids go to that boarding school is the innate ability to do magic. A privilege you are born with, and that is dependent on your ancestry. Even if "blood purity" is a recurring theme for the bad guys in the books, it is made clear that the ability to do magic is like a gene, and if you are born a muggle, you will stay a muggle.
The reason it is worse than selection based on wealth or even nobility is that while it may be something you are born with, this is also something you can acquire, not so much with magic.
Not only that but there is essentially no drawback to being a wizard. Wizards tend to dislike muggle tech, but there is effectively nothing preventing their use, it is just that they can do better with magic. In the same way that being born rich comes with a lot of advantages and very few disadvantages.
The idea of innate magic ability that make those who have it strictly superior is extremely common, and honestly, it works, but if you want a story where the idea is that anyone have their chance, which is how I interpret the idea of "not just wealthy kids", then Harry Potter is not that.
That being said, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't take anything away from the story, not everything has to be a political statement, and in fact, making a political statement often makes the story worse.
Lots of fantasy settings end up supporting some really bad worldviews if you look too far into them. I highly doubt the creators of Avatar: The Last Airbender realized they were creating a society of ethnostates enforced by an all powerful pseudo-immortal autocrat supported by a secret society. They just wanted a reason for the main character to go on an interesting journey to save the world.
It became a problem for me when they tried to make a sequel that took the setting more seriously. Maybe one person chosen by lottery at birth shouldn't be allowed to kill heads of state without any oversight? The villains who were opposed to the chosen one's uncontested rule ended up making more sense than the enforcers of the status-quo.
There's a funny video explaining why the Disney direct-to-tv movie Sky High is actually propaganda for fascist eugenics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIdbLUm-ez8 The "some people are just born superior" out is an easy excuse when you're trying to come up with a reason why the main character and their cohort of whacky friends have the ability to save the world while everyone else is helpless, but taken to the logical extreme is blatantly fascist.
reply