I am high and you are correct.
zbyte64
joined 1 year ago
The people with Trumpgret didn't get there by people telling them they fucked up. These people don't value your opinion so telling them they're wrong is fulfilling your own needs, not anyone else's.
You can address the inaction of voters without making it about blaming individuals with as much power as yourself. But telling people "I told you so" serves a different need.
How exactly does blaming your neighbors create meaningful change? I don't care whether you think it's right or wrong, I am asking how it actually helps improve the system.
That's oligarchy apologetics bullshit to keep us from changing the system. No need to make things more democratic if we're blaming the majority of people.
*Won the popular vote but still a minority (<50%) voted for this.
It was a system of checks and balances, but the Democrats went along with consolidating power. So while yes, they aren't the direct cause, they were the adults in the room and they failed in that responsibility.
Every empire's days are numbered, but I don't think I can count that high
Don't even need trials apparently.
Talking about Alpha Evolve https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/ ?
First, Microsoft isn't using this yet but even if they were it doesn't work in this context. What Google did was they wrote a fitness function to tune the Generative process. Why not have some rubric that scores the code as our fitness function? Because the function needs to be continuous for this to work well, no sudden cliffs. But also they didn't address how this would work in a multi-objective space, this technique doesn't let the LLM make reasonable trade offs between complexity and speed.
The point is to get open source maintainers to further train their program because they already scraped all our code. I wonder if this will become a larger trend among corporate owned open source projects.
Missing from the article: lessons learned.