I'm noy bothered by it but I wonder if it betrays some sort of religious belief from the authors? Which ideally should be either avoided or disclaimed explicitly
If you want your writing to be taken as establishing facts, you need to base it on a priori established facts; if you base it on hypotheses and beliefs then you're just expanding on the hypothesis, contributing further belief.
I suspect though that it's not the author's beliefs, just an ambiguously written way of saying that it was done by those people with that belief - in the same way that an atheist or follower of some other religion may say that Christians pray in order to communicate their wishes to God. Of course there is the rude and angry for no clear reason brand of atheist who could never bring themselves to say such a thing, but to the rest of us there is no problem in describing someone else's actions by their own reasons for doing them, even if we don't share that motivation. I have colleagues who run for pleasure; though I do not for mine.
This seems to be a comprehensive repeat of the "Rot13" and "Mystery Blocks world" experiments as described by Prof. Subbarao Kambhampati
Rot13 meaning that LLMs can't do Rot 3, 4, ..., n except for Rot13 (because that' in the training data)
Mystery Blocks World being a trivial "translation" (by direct replacement of terms) of a simple Blocks World. The LLMs can solve the original, but not the "translation" - susprisingly, even when provided with the term replacements!
Both are discussed in Prof. Subbarao's Machine Learning Street Talks episode
I like how they highlighted a commonality between two disparate things. When I recognized the pattern, my neurons lit up, eliciting a pleasurable response.
Rosy in comparison to the rest of the world - maybe
Rosy in comparison to 1976~2000 - no
I'm under the impression it's been (sort of) proven (but I have no source) that the major reason for 'college kids complaining' is precisely because of the perceived loss in quality of life, purchasing power and access to {healtchare, safety, community, third spaces} when compared to prior generations
I'm glad you mentioned 'perceived' loss in quality of life. I think that is what is being argued, does the perception meet the reality?
It could be that the major reason for 'college kids perception of loss in quality of life' is that the rise of ad-driven media, as opposed to the previous generation's subscription model, leads to more sensationalized news to drive clicks. Combine that with online forums (echo chambers) that make it easier to complain to a sympathetic audience. College kids are also more susceptible to recency bias, they didn't live through previous times of uncertainty and have no memories of cold wars or the turbulence that previous generations lived through.
To me it seems that even software engineers and bankers in US and UK, at least those who don’t have parental support, will struggle to ever attain the things that are achievable to moderately ambitious european kids from the lowest wealth and income deciles at 25-30 in a wide range of professions: 40 hour workweeks, comfortable middle class lifestyle, home ownership in appreciating, investment grade old real estate in historical city centres.
> It must be normally issuing rulings written by people who aren't the justices themselves
Correct. Each "Justice" is more like a full fledged law office. It's designed like that.
> Seeing as it appears to answer to nobody, nor follow any normal judicial procedure (being both accuser and judge in one body), it would seem fair to describe that as a parallel government acting as a dictatorship. How else could you describe it?
I could describe it fairly. It's the top authority in a 3-branch government consisting of a council of many members with varied and often opposing views. Quite obviously different than a "parallel government" and dictatorship by definition
But I'd be wasting my time arguing with you for your sake. You're not seriously asking in good faith. I'm replying for the benefit of other people who may see your misguided politicaly motivated concern trolling
No. Each minister has ~40 judges - not counting other staffers, law clerks, specialists, chief of staff - under them
It's standard, legal and completely expected for the Justice to dispose a general "guidance", delegate all the work and approve the sentencing based on minutes
A lot of people posting here are clearly right-leaning Brazilian voters with a bone to pick.
By most definitions of the term, yeah, using drugs is "normal", and ancient practice. Strict persecution seems to me to be a recent invention
> everyone should try
Absolutely: not everyone should try all recreational drugs. As radical as saying that no one should try any recreational drug, right?
The discussion here is about meeting in a healthy middle and you seemed to have taken the latter position, which you must agree is radical and out of the question
It is extremely difficult to agree on a healthy middle. If you look at something I think most people consider much safer, we see how hard it is. What is a safe level of high fructose corn syrup that should be allowed as an ingredient of hamburger buns?
At some level, everything we put into our bodies has consequences, but it seems terrifying to me to have discussions about a healthy middle ground of how much meth is ok in a serving of mozzarella. Then again, I have no idea if the fancy chemical names currently listed as ingredients on the labels of food I eat are preservatves or what, and what their actual consequences are to my health.
Nobody is talking about adding recreational drugs to food.
Corn syrup, as bad as it may be to consume in great quantities with a modern lifestyle, is food with calories even if it may lack other more healthy nutrients.
Should be banned? I don't think so. But regulated so companies don't abuse it as a cheap ingredient.
For how legal recreational drugs would work just look at nicotine regulation.
reply