This is actually true? Facebook bans users who talk about contraception and HIV?
I don't use Facebook so no idea if this is true or not personally, but ChatGPT seems to think this isn't true and that if it does happen it's probably a mistake?
It's not 'whataboutism' when you're impugning their authority while seemingly have none of your own... or, in the alternative, even if it is, it's quite valid in this instance.
Respectfully, do a Google search and not a ChatGPT one. Facebook's recent nonsense is fairly well documented. (They have also gone back and forth on this a few times)
Meta is a garbage company. An absolutely fetid cancer on humanity that offers zero good and all bad.
Most companies have good and bad. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Valve, and so on. They have the things that should be criticized, but have some good they bring to the world. Meta -- just a malignant, cancerous venue for stupidity. An organization that exists on the backs of scammers, cons, hate, disinformation, and so on. Like use Instagram for a day and it's just amazing that this hive of villainy and scum hasn't been banned every country worldwide but the one where the plutocrats run the country.
I'd argue that for some time now it's made increasing sense to start to diversifying away from large cap-weighted index funds.
Historically indexes like the S&P500 were much less concentrated and more diverse in its holdings across the economy.
For the last few years specifically one could argue that indexes like the S&P500 have become more or less just mega-cap tech funds, and this has resulted in their PE ratios being pushed higher and higher as they index more on growth-oriented valuations vs their more traditional blue chip holdings.
At the same time we've seen rates increase which has made bonds relatively attractive vs stocks again. For investors looking for lower-risk opportunities it seems to me the S&P500 is no longer the best place to put money (and low-risk returns were the reason for many people to invest in diversified index funds during the ZIRP era).
Obviously it depends on your investment strategy and goals, but all this is to say that even before this rule change, if you invested in an index fund like the S&P500 because you wanted to hold a relatively low-risk diverse selection of quality profitable companies at a fair market-valuation you're not really getting that anymore. Instead you're getting a relatively concentrated, high valuation investment all the while valuations and expected returns in other opportunities have become more attractive.
For me personally I've been investing more in small-cap indexes and out of tech to try to balance out my holdings, and this rule change gives me yet more reason to continue to do that. That said, I am very concentrated in tech, but in individual companies I believe in rather than an index fund.
I'm also generally sceptical when investment decisions start to become seen as no-brainer passive investment opportunities, which in recent years it seems investing in the S&P500 has... That's not to say that it's going to collapse or anything, just that it tends to be safe to assume that expect returns may be lower in the coming years.
It means that Anthropic has submitted a document that it intends to share with the public in order to solicit public investment. This document includes details about its business, financials/revenue, ownership structure, risks, etc...
The document itself is what's confidential until the SEC approves it, at which point Anthropic will release that document to the public and IPO.
Several years ago I built a simple snake game and wrote a DQN from scratch to learn how to play it.
I was really proud of it at the time because I had to do a decent amount of reading and research since I wrote all of the NN code from scratch and wanted to add some more advanced algorithm optimisations which I hadn't done in previous projects.
I suspect a coding agent could spit the entire project out in 20 minutes now, but it was very cool at the time to build a game then watch my computer learn how to play it in real time.
Maybe I'm old but I feel like actual tech meetups died well over a decade ago...
They used to be full of geeks building cool stuff and people would genuinely be interested in what you were doing. I made a lot of friends back in the day from those tech meetups.
What you're describing here is exactly why I dislike and avoid meetups today.
There was a shift somewhere in the 2010s where it started to become harder and harder to find good tech meetups and instead they all seemed to morph in some combination of a networking event, people trying to pitch the startup they were working on, or people just trying to practice public speaking.
The tech scene today isn't really a place for people interested in tech. It's a scene for people who want to be the next tech billionaire or want to build a following as a public speaker for their career.
And that's fine. I just personally have no interest in networking with these types of people.
I'd also note that the utility of the networking benefits of meetups today is close to non-existent due to the types of people who attend them. You're better off building professional working relationships with people imo.
This is literally my biggest fear. The idea that my biology or consciousness could be keep alive and in a state of suffering for years, decades, centuries or longer via neural simulation or biological intervention.
I do wonder if AI advancements will allow me to see these horrors play out. Hopefully not to myself.
The law does provide a definition of hate speech that does not apply to mean words in general.
You assume we both know what is meant by "racist words" which implies it is a category that can be defined. Hate speech laws apply to more categories than race too. The wikipedia article has excerpts of and links to the relevant legislation and important cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United...
Hate speech is a subcategory of mean words that needs to be legally prevented for a just society where people are equal. Racist words are only hate speech if they are uttered and used in a discriminatory manner. Since whatever group is targeted by hate speech is the only group that can be harmed by the hate speech, they should be handled differently in the eyes of the law to ensure no one group is excessively discriminated against
Do you feel the same about homophobia, height discrimination, fat discrimination and other discriminatory behaviours? Or do you feel these are different enough that they should be treated differently?
I think I disagree with you on this, but I think what you've said is a perfectly valid opinion and appreciate your response. I'm sorry that it appears someone has downvoted you for disagreeing. This seems to be a new trend on HN and I wish people would stop doing it.
> Do you feel the same about homophobia, height discrimination, fat discrimination and other discriminatory behaviours?
The first is covered by current UK law, the other are not.
> I think I disagree with you on this, but I think what you've said is a perfectly valid opinion and appreciate your response. I'm sorry that it appears someone has downvoted you for disagreeing. This seems to be a new trend on HN and I wish people would stop doing it
Agreed. I upvote a lot of things I disagree with to counter unfair downvotes (including GP).
homophobia, of course, considering I myself am bisexual and have had relations with other women.
Height and weight discrimination depends on what is considered height and weight discrimination. Saying you need to be x height or y weight to do something? That's safety. People saying they'd only date someone above x height or below y weight? I bit shallow but that's personal preference. Saying everyone above 200 pounds is lazy and deserves to die of a heart attack? Maybe then it crosses the line into actual discrimination
I know I'm being super conspiratorial here but why wouldn't all forecasters predict just between 30% - 70%? That way if they're "right" they can take the credit for it and if they're wrong they can say "well, we weren't that wrong". That's probably what I'd do anyway...
It implies a close race or a strong reason to believe there's some sort of systemic polling miss, and if it's a blowout you still look pretty bad. Especially if you don't have some kind of good explanation for the miss/you keep making those kinds of misses frequently.
Also there's more going in those forecasts besides just the "% chance to win". There's expected results in terms of %'s of the vote for the candidates, and that's what people tend to focus on for actually analyzing your performance and credibility after the fact.
You getting the outcome correct but being off by 20 points on the margin is a much worse performance than you getting the outcome wrong but being within 0.5 points of the margin. (ex: Results are 49.75/50.25, you predicted 30/70, another outlet predicted 50.25/49.75).
538 claimed that they post-checked thousands of elections and their percentages were pretty close. (E.g., 30% chances happened about 30% of the time, million to one chances happened every single time)
You're completely right, although I believe this number was not decided personally. They just happened to pick algorithms that have this "nice" property because it will lead to the same result.
Of course there's more than that. Predicting higher uncertainty than warranted would be a different failure in the model. But that didn't really happen in that election.
> I know I'm being super conspiratorial here but why wouldn't all forecasters predict just between 30% - 70%? That way if they're "right" they can take the credit for it and if they're wrong they can say "well, we weren't that wrong". That's probably what I'd do anyway...
For anyone making many predictions, you can analyze the outcomes to see how accurate those percentages are.
For anyone making few predictions, you should never trust their track record even if it's technically perfect.
I don't use Facebook so no idea if this is true or not personally, but ChatGPT seems to think this isn't true and that if it does happen it's probably a mistake?
reply