This has consistently pissed me off. It seems like we all just accepted that whatever they define as "functioning"/"OK" is suitable. I see the status now shows, but there should be a very loud third party ruthlessly running continuous tests against all of them. Ideally it would also provide proof of the degradation we seem to all agree happens (looking at you Gemini). Like a leaderboard focused on actual live performance. Of course they'd probably quickly game that too. But something showing time to first response, "global capacity reached" etc, effective throttling metric, a intelligence metric. Maybe like crowdsourced stats so they can't focus on improving the metrics for just the IPs associated with this hypothetical third party performance watchdog.
The one that pissed me off the most was Gemini API displaying very clearly 1) user cancelled request in Gemini chat app 2) API showing "user quota reached". Both were blatant lies. In the latter case, you could find the actual global quota cause later in the error message. I don't know why there isn't more outrage. I'm guessing this sort of behavior is not new, but it's never been so visible to me.
Gemini had a partial outage on their status page and then once it was over after 10 days, it became a single day partial outage. For me, it was nearly two weeks of 95% failure rates.
Yup displays as an "auth" issue to me. Just a nice reminder that my original plan was to be provider agnostic but everything was working so well with cc I lost sight lol.
How can some one on hn think AI is a gimmick? I truly don't understand this. You can completely ignore 99% of it that is distasteful to you it seems to me you would still have to come to the conclusion it's not a gimmick. Is alphafold a gimmick? Are boltzmann generators gimmicks? Are improved weather predictions gimmicks? Are diffusion models gimmicks?
Hubris. Is the same mindset that leads to socialism, central planning, social darwinism, etc. The temptation of "theory" without the suffering from pesky reality.
"All phenomena involved in the functional operation of the social mechanism are measurable"
From the article, reminded me that the complexities and nuance of life at the ground level really are lost on some.
Even if you genuinely could measure every single detail of life and the forces that move the economy, no committee of experts could ever hope to reason through the data and make coherent solutions that actually survive reality.
There’s multiple corporations. When you have state level central planning there’s no adversarial check or feedback mechanism. Nothing challenges it to see if it’s actually doing a good job.
Of course this is also a strong argument for antitrust. In some markets today there is basically one corporation or a few that seem more interlocked than competing. That starts to be indistinguishable from Soviet bureaus.
HN is full of left-populists these days and any slightly negative mention of socialism or central planning (their equivalent utopian vision) triggers them.
I think this suggests it's more than just hubris, it's religion. These aren't just ideas, they are belief systems and identities for people. Hence why someone would downvote a benign internet comment like yours.
The steady decline of traditional religions has left people searching for meaning in other ways, and it has manifested in all sorts of bizarre belief systems and behavior over the past 200ish years, technocracy being one of them.
I would equate similar values to people who think socialism and central planning are somehow linked and share the same criticisms. Probably 90% of criticism I hear about socialism is complete and utter nonsense. Co-op businesses are socialist ideals in practice and co-ops have consistently gained market share over the last 80+ years, and it is neither linked to or shares any of the problems as central planning.
Im all for reading criticism about economic models, but it seems like the vast majority of it has nothing to do with anything Marx proposed or idealized and is just translocated hatred of authoritarian policies which is far more often in opposition to Marxist principles than supporting them. Socialist ideaology far more directly supports democratic workplaces and democratic economic decisions than centralized leadership and control.
Well you're criticizing shitty thinkers rightfully w.r.t
to co-ops; they're great, they aren't top-down.
But you're committing the same error. Co-ops are completely compatible with capitalism so holding them up as contrast doesn't make much sense. Show me non-authoritarian Marxism at the scale Marx so confidently predicted.
Marx simply had a flawed understanding of economics and it's time we moved on. We have the data supporting the decision to do so. Usually when a theory makes completely incorrect predictions repeatedly, we abandon it. But apparently marxists know better than everyone. Do they have some secret data set?
Something exists in capitalism so therefore it can't be socialism? And im not going to get into another circular reasoning of "It didn't exist in that form before therefore it is impossible now." At no point have you pointed out anything Marx supported that is a problem other than a generalized brush of everything.
90% of Marxist work is a study of capitalism, much of which we still hold true today, so to me you look like everyone else that blindly dismisses what he said without learning what he even did or said.
I didn't say it wasn't socialism. I said it wasn't a counterexample. As for whether you still think it's worth taking Marx seriously as an economist, I'm guessing you'd laugh at someone citing Smith. Yet one had a better track record than the other. My point was simply that a theory should be judged on its merits, it's predictions, it's actual outcomes.
I'm kind of getting at the fact that people tend to optimistically overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes. This is true for lottery tickets, and stock options (every startup is definitely going to the moon).
From the company's perspective, options/equity are great for creating alignment. From an employee perspective, employees need to understand that they are making a bet and have limited control over the outcome of said bet.
I agree with that aspect, but I still think there's a difference. You can't effect the outcome of lotto ticket. To some extent, you can with stock. The incentive probably helps the company more than it helps the individual, but that's the nice part of the feedback again.
Could explain the thesis/context a little more? Are you PE-adjacent? Are you trying to improve these sites/facilities? What exactly do you mean by "industrial real estate"? Are you acquiring just the sites or the facilities as well? Could you give an example of an asset and what levers you pull on it?
Did the same. Although I'm considering a pipeline where sessions are periodically translated to .md with most tool outputs and other junk stripped and using that as source to query against for context. I am testing out a semi-continuous ingestion of it in to my rag/knowledge db.
"Nobody should go and put a "retracted" stamp over "Principia Mathematica", or the "Special Relativity" paper of Einstein. Both are wrong, we know."
What does that have to do with this situation? I'm honestly trying to figure out your chain of thought. Do you think the future should have an impact on the present somehow? The fraud in the op post happened at the time of publication. Oh and btw. No fraud in the two you cited. Unless you figured out how to apply future to present. In which case they probably would've published much better papers, somehow.
The problem is how to document error without overwhelming honest authors. Imagine a nightmare with a DMCA like process, where anyone can can fill a retraction request and the authors have a week to reply. [The data is in an obscure folder in a notebook that is dead since 5 years. Most of the processing was done by a guy that is now working in the industry for x10 salary.] [Assuming you didn't work with mice, and you must resurrect them to fill the additional data asked in the retraction request.]
An alternative is let the editors ask a new reviewer to make the decision, but everyone has horror stories of reviewers that made bad reviews in spite the manuscript was correct. Then what? Ask the authors again to defend the paper?
The current method is that anybody can publish a "comment" if they find a journal that agree to publish it.
Regardless, published papers aren't an authoritative source of truth. Just a note to your friends "hey I did some cool stuff I want to tell you about!"
Sure it's slightly more reviewed than a GitHub repo, but it's not an end all be all.
reply