Eh. Maybe. But I do see people who are pretty consistent when they have power. It may be somewhat unpredictable before they get power, but somewhat more predictable once you’ve seen how they act with it.
This principle of relative consistency is baked into how I test employees for management and friends for trust, and in the past, roommates as well. Though I do acknowledge potential for growth as well, but in my older age I generally also need to see evidence of motivation to give strong benefit of the doubt wrt possible trajectory.
Libertarian principles encourage relationships built on mutual consenting parties rather than coercion. This implies that both parties have the freedom to choose. Imagine being stuck with a small dating pool of undesirable partners, the choices may not be good but that doesn't make it authoritarian.
Except in 21st Century America, where libertarian is really just masked authoritarian. Essentially, that means “free to do whatever you want as long as it’s our way.”
Claude isn't AGI, but this is a terrible argument. I'm better at Javascript than C, too. Does this mean I'm not a generalized intelligence? I'm just JS stack autocomplete?
How do HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 change things? (Sonnet 4.6 and ChatGPT [idk default free] told me they don't. Gemini 3 Fast gave me a long essay on how they technically do.)
Mostly it seems like it's other things--CNAME flattening and whatnot--that make it unnecessary.
But it's been unnecessary since long before HTTP/2, and we do it for semantic or historical reasons. I don't think anyone is including www because they think it's technically necessary.
If you want me to change the way I do things, make your case and support your claims! If the entire point here is "you don't need to include www", well, yeah, duh, we've all visited apex domains. We know it's a perfectly valid option.
Seems like the point of this website[0] is to provide a lot of concise, often opinionated design suggestions. Taken as a whole, it's interesting and worth browsing. This individual point? Under-developed.
It also missed out on making an obvious reference that would also add a reason for its recommendation: "Drop the www. It's cleaner."
This is interesting to observe and quantify. I wish it weren't written in such a ChatGPT style. (I find the constant complaints about this sort of thing tiresome, but in some cases it's just so blatant that I complete sympathize. Writing is a skill worth practicing. Failing that, prompting an AI to not sound like this is a skill worth practicing.)
It's amusing, but when it comes to doing actually work, I just don't care if my LLM fails things like this.
I'm not trying to trick it, so falling for tricks is harmless for my use cases. Does it write quality, secure code? Does it give me accurate answers about coding/physics/biology. If it gets those wrong, that's a problem. If it fails to solve riddles, well, that'll be a problem iff I decide to build a riddle solver using it.
Additionally, I don't think that these kinds of failures say much about overall intelligence. Humans are largely visual creatures, and we fall prey to innumerable visual illusions where we fail to see what's actually there or imagine something that isn't there under certain visual patterns.
LLMs are largely textual creatures and they fail to see things that are there or imagine things that are under certain textual patterns.
I don't think you would say a human "isn't really intelligent" because it imagines grey spots at the intersection of black squares on a white background even though they aren't there.
Yeah, I understood it such that the information was first moved from standard to verbose mode, and when people pointed out that they will drowned out in noise there, tge response was to cut down verbose mode as well.
I didn't know about the ^o mode though, so good that the verbose information is at least still available somewhere. Even though now it seems like an enormously complicated maneuver with no purpose.
It's old, but I suspect we still have pretty widespread agreement among experts:
"If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85% [of economics agree])"[0]
A 3% rule doesn't strictly violate this, but it's obviously violating the basic principle: some years you should go higher, and some years you should go lower.
reply