The mode is completely different. You have to twist Cuban’s words to make him say the same thing as Jobs. Because he didn’t say “find the thing you love” he said spend enough effort on what you’re doing until it becomes the thing you love. Jobs is about an actual search, which takes effort, for sure. Cuban is about transformation in place.
Not at all. Jobs is not implying that you should, like, jump from minimum wage job to minimum wage job until you find one you like. He is suggesting that if you put in effort, like learning deeply about something, that will close the gaps that are necessarily closed to find true love. Which is the same thing Cuban is saying.
Perhaps you can interpret Jobs' statement that way in a vacuum, but fortunately we don't need to evaluate what Jobs' said in a vacuum. He also said a lot of other things that allow us to build up context around his intent. He spoke a lot about how he found his love.
It entirely depends what success means to you! Don't let society or even your perception of society define that.
In all fairness, I know that you meant "wealthy and/or influential people". But it bodes ill at every level that your tacit belief about success is widely known and widely accepted (though certainly not universally).
Postman's book is exactly against that definition of success, though he readily points it out. He describes it in the "Gods that Fail" section of the book.
That is, if they're licensed. Most hardware engineers, at least in the US, are not licensed PEs; you only need a PE license if you're signing off on engineering work under government contract or public safety is a concern or its some otherwise regulated industry where the regulations require it.
Or maybe a better way of putting it... a corrupted save annoys one user who has already paid you the $30 they're ever going to pay.
Compared to if you run a cloud storage company, a corrupted file might annoy a user that pays $1m every month, to store data that they themselves make money on, etc.
Yeah, Blow has a generally unfavorable opinion of scripting in game engines. Jai (the language) gets around that by being very fast to compile debug builds, about 150 kloc/s, which he says he intends to optimize up to 1 mloc/s. Order of the sinking star compiles in about 2 seconds for a clean build, so iteration can be basically as fast as what you'd expect from scripting.
Well, it becomes bad for you if you start needing to take so much of it that the other stimulant effects start causing problems, like poor sleep. Most addictive substances have this potential, since "the dose makes the poison". But the same dose forever rarely satisfies cravings forever.
Except that he most certainly did! The bitter lesson isn't about LLMs vs specialized neural networks! It's about manually programmed expert systems vs machine learning. Alpha Go Zero isn't very good at anything but playing Go. It's a highly specialized brain only for that singular task. LLMs remain a problematic technology (both in terms of reliability and privacy) for a lot of domains and my own prediction is that smaller models that are much more reliable for a specific domain will become common after the utility of AI is known by way of LLMs, but the reliability or cost of running them makes it unsustainable.
While biology has inspired many inventions, the electric motor is not one of them. Electric motors were invented in the mid 19th century, before cells were known to be anything more than simple blobs of protoplasm, barely distinguishable under a microscope. It wasn't until high powered microscopes were invented that biologists had any clue to the previously unthinkable complexity of cellular life.
if cows, pigs, and chickens are real living beings, we are committing killing.
Whether killing is murder requires an ethical judgment to be made. If a criminal on death row is executed, we would not say they were murdered. At least, not until it is shown that they were innocent after the fact; in which case those who falsely accused him, botched evidence, mishandled the case may be ethically considered to have murdered him, or at the very least have committed negligent manslaughter, though legally speaking there are limitations.
Also, murder applies only to beings considered persons. As animals are not considered persons by most, it is a category error to suppose that they can be murdered.
> If a criminal on death row is executed, we would not say they were murdered.
Who is "we" in this case.
In many if not most countries, capital punishment is viewed as a barbaric practice. Many regard it as murder, because as you note, it is the killing of a person.
You're being a bit ambiguous. I would say that in all countries, there exist individuals who in their own subjective opinion would view capital punishment as murder.
But you're not engaging with my point on its own terms, and as such are missing it entirely. In the case of an individual viewing capital punishment as murder requires an ethical judgment to be made, which is the point, not the example.
If an author says "we" and you disagree with them, it is not productive to nitpick about whom that class names: you already have enough information to answer it: a group the author is aware of and identifies with in regard to the following view. You reading it doesn't imply you're a part of the class.
Secondly, the usage of "we" in hypothetical discussion acts more as a fairly neutral stand in to satisfy English's requirement for an explicit subject, while setting the right tone.
But for the sake of precision, as no one is above a tacit request for precision...
If a criminal on death row is executed, one who views capital punishment as ethical would not describe the killing as murder.
> Also, murder applies only to beings considered [humans, ftfy]. As animals are not considered persons by most, it is a category error to suppose that they can be murdered.
Precisely. Just like it is a category error to see LLMs as conscient.
reply