Lisäksi jättää täysin huomiotta, että töissä käynnissä on kuluja/haittapuolia. On riski työtapaturmasta. Pitemmät krooniset ammattisairaudet ja vaivat. Kulut, työmatka, työruokailu jne.
Töissä käynti ei ole ilmaista, joten ihan ensimmäiseksi työkorvauksen määrän täytyy kattaa syntyvät lisäkulut. Sen jälkeen voidaan alkaa puhua henkilökohtaisen työhön käytetyn ajan korvaamisesta ja niin edelleen.
Well it could also be a lever or a switch.
Newer ever take Klarnas word for anything. They are the fine and Dandy company whose business model involved by routine fishing for customers bank authorization credentials.
Nah. 2k$ was a cheap PR face save for them. Pay 2k$ or deal for weeks and months with “remember how Tesla was a stingy bad corporate and cancelled a large order to a small business without compensation”.
Noh they can go “Well yeah the cancellation wasn’t exactly gracefully, but hey we compensated the business for it. Our bad.”
Mind you even just paying the while 15k$ would have been small change for them. So I guess they are not utterly (business relations wise) horrible company, but still a cheap conglomerate.
Well difference is you have to know coming to know did the AI produce what you actually wanted.
Anyone can read the letter and know did the AI hallucinate or actually produce what you wanted.
On code. It might produce code, that by first try does what you ask. However turns AI hallucinated a bug into the code for some edge or specialty case.
Hallucinating is not a minor hiccup or minor bug, it is fundamental feature of LLMs. Since it isn’t actually smart. It is a stochastic requrgitator. It doesn’t know what you asked or understand what it is actually doing. It is matching prompt patterns to output. With enough training patterns to match one statistically usually ends up about there. However this is not quaranteed. Thus the main weakness of the system. More good training data makes it more likely it more often produces good results. However for example for business critical stuff, you aren’t interested did it get it about right the 99 other times. It 100% has to get it right, this one time. Since this code goes to a production business deployment.
I guess one can code comprehensive enough verified testing pattern including all the edge cases and with thay verify the result. However now you have just shifted the job. Instead of programmer programming the programming, you have programmer programming the very very comprehensive testing routines. Which can’t be LLM done, since the whole point is the testing routines are there to check for the inherent unreliability of the LLM output.
It’s a nice toy for someone wanting to make a quick and dirty test code (maybe) to do thing X. Then try to find out does this actually do what I asked or does it have unforeseen behavior. Since I don’t know what the behavior of the code is designed to be. Since I didn’t write the code. good for toying around and maybe for quick and dirty brainstorming. Not good enough for anything critical, that has to be guaranteed to work with promise of service contract and so on.
So what the future real big job will be is not prompt engineers, but quality assurance and testing engineers who have to be around to guard against hallucinating LLM/ similar AIs. Prompts can be gotten from anyone, what is harder is finding out did the prompt actually produced what it was supposed to produce.
There not being a better play doesn’t mean that play is a good one. It is a bad play, just the least bad one. What it means the system overall is broken and careening ro a crash, since the actually good plays are not politically viable. Mind you not that they wouldn’t be voter viable, but the gatekeepers who get to choose what is put in front of voters viably don’t want them there, that kind of politically non viable.
If they made 4 models, two different sized trucks and two different sized SUVs
Yeah. The key is this will be a whole USA tastes specific brand for VW Group. Not just a single model. They are pouring lot of money into this and even VW Group don’t make a 2 billion dollar factory on a whim.
Infact I would say what and how well the brand does couple first years isn’t that important to VW. If course they want it ramped up and profitable as soon as possible. However this has to be long term play. Otherwise they would have just launched SUV and Pick-up under VW or one other of their existing brands.
Stellantis has Chrysler, RAM, Jeep and so on in place in USA. VW Group wants something similarly matching in place for North American Market. VW went through their brand and IP catalog and realised via Traton they own Navistar, which owns rights to International and well would you look at that International had a pick-up range named Scout. This all went on the burner pretty soon after the Traton-Navistar deal finalised in 2021.
I would even say I wouldn’t be surprised, if other stuff wouldn’t later on appear from the design catalog as Scout branded for US Market. For example I wouldn’t be at all surprised say on a Scout Transporter cargo van later on and so on.
So it might be VW Group has existing model somewhere around the world in place and think it might sell in USA. Well send the blueprints to Scouts factory and have them slap Scout badging and maybe some design curves on the outer paneling. Badge-engineering is a thing.
Well ofcourse they have limited VW brand presence also, but we’ll it might be once Scout is up and running Scout might fully take over. Depends I guess how they see the brand caches.
Ehhhh. 2016, the year of an open no-incumbent primary? That is not called division, that is called primary democracy working as supposed. Primary is exactly the time, when party membership is under no obligation to show unity. That only needs to happen during the national election stage.
Also just due to winning primary one isn’t as candidate free to ignore other candidate bases. Not out of any high ideals, but hard political reality. No voter is obligated to show up and voters are emotional beings. Slight them and they might stay home (which is the actual risk, instead of them voting for the other party).
It might be “self-harming”, but again voters can be emotional instead of rational. One has to play to their actual psyche, instead of the idealistic perfect rational psyche one would want them to have. Atleast if one wants to win and shouldn’t the aim of democratic party be win by near any means begging, promising the moon to its base, being as enthusiastic and energetic as possible for the national good of avoiding another Trump presidency.
People talk about electorates obligation to avoid another Trump presidency. What about DNCs obligation to go above and beyond to avoid another Trump presidency.
Which is easier to change? The collective psyche layout of 300 million people or one party’s campaign program and political agenda? It’s easier to fix the candidate/candidates program to match the electorate, rather than fix the electorate to match the candidate.
So if there is “division” among party base, it is the candidates and party programs job to move to match, cover and repair the cracks. Not out of high ideals, but since that is the one practically fast enough way to fix the issue. Base isn’t going to suddenly change their psyche and emotional state just, because DNC says to do so out of national good. Again emotional beings, not robotic, rational automatons.
Statistical photography aka computational photography aka supersampling. Statistically bin together number of smaller pixels to cut the amount of noise to create picture of a lower resolution than sensor level, but better quality.
It isn’t about need, but about want. Every extra notch of control they can get over workers employment opportunities, they want.
No it really isn’t that popular, based on polling done just before the Hamas attack.
Like it is among the most supported among Palestinians, but that leaves out the little matter of majority of Palestinians support no one, trust no one. They support no one, see no hope of better future with any path and pretty much are living due to day trying to manage the practical matters of their lives.
Yeah these polls always being in terms like “registered voters” or “likely voters”. Where as they really should poll “eligible to vote” instead to get full picture of the societal political mood situation.
Road or cycleway. Pedestrian only sidewalk is not place for bicycles or scooters due to their greater speed.
There is combined cycleway and walkways, but there the point is those are wider than mere sidewalks, so there is room for cycles and scooters to safely overtake pedestrians.
Also not only would they need more satellites, but satellites more densely in any area with multitude of customers. Which eventually hits RF interference saturation.
Radio signal has only so much bandwidth in certain amount of frequency band. Infact being high up and far away makes it worse. Since more receivers hit the beam of the satellite transmission. One would have to acquire more radio bands, but we’ll unused global satellite transmission bands don’t grow in trees.
Tighter transmitters and better filtering receivers can help, but usually at great expense and in the end eventually one hits a limit of “can’t cheat laws of physics”
Well he never won in the first place. This is the original final decision of him losing in the first place. What was “won” previously was SpaceX getting short listed as one of the companies to be seriously considered for award. Then followed the actual final full decision checks and SpaceX failed to meet criterion for the subsidy.
However this isn’t about your anecdotal experience. This is about what level of service they can guarantee as minimum and overall to meet the conditions of the subsidy.
I would also note this isn’t reinstatement matter. FCC refused to give them the subsidy in the first place with this decision. What SpaceX are trying to spin as reneg on previous decision is them making the short list of companies to be considered. Well, getting short listed is not same as being selected fully.
They passed the criterion for the short list check, but the final authorization and selection included more wide and more through checking on the promises of companies to meet criterion and SpaceX failed the more through final round of scrutiny before being awarded the subsidy.
Government having awarded bad money previously isn’t fixed by following up bad awards with more bad awards. SpaceX exactly failed since previously money was handed out too losely and FCC has tightened the scrutiny on subsidy awards to not follow up bad money with more bad money.
Nobody is prevented from buying Starlink, this just means Starlink isn’t getting subsidized with tax payer money.
Nor does it remove it from being a war crime. Just being indifferent to whether one hits civilians or not is a war crime. The bar is one has to concern oneself actively with considering how to minimise civilian casualties.
There possibly is a pushers/braking truck attached to the rear of the Transporter.
Also one must remember on transporter it is about winning over rolling resistance rather than the weight. Doesn’t necessarily take that powerfull truck on flat ground to pull even great load.
Also turbine housing has lot of air and as equipment to be lifted to top of a mast, built with light weight in mind. Not for pulling it, but in thought of the crane that has to lift that thing dead load up.
Why do you think USA has abysmal voter turn out… … … … …
That is just its core function doing its thing transforming inputs to outputs based on learned pattern matching.
It may not have been trained on translation explicitly, but it very much has been trained on these are matching stuff via its training material. Since you know what its training set most likely contained… dictionaries. Which is as good as asking it to learn translation. Another stuff most likely in training data: language course books, with matching translated sentences in them. Again well you didnt explicitly tell it to learn to translate, but in practice the training data selection did it for you.