So 1/40 of Reuters annual revenues, 1/1000 of Facebook annual revenues, is being wasted on ... lobbying governments against internet censorship and cross-subsidising translations into less popular languages?

How dare the most useful human knowledge resource spend the money freely given to it in such a way!

The 'Wikipedia is spending your donations on DEI' conspiracy has run its course I think.

A strange take. Everything indicates that while the best human chess and Go players will continue to be incrementally better than all previous humans, computer players will improve much faster and leave all humans behind in very short order.

As with chess, roughly equal matches between computers and human players are probably happening for the very last few times.

Idiomatically a handicap is a disadvantage not an advantage. So if Shin had two extra stones, KataGo had a two stone handicap.

Handicaps can be positive, e.g. in fixed distance racing one way to handicap is to "give" a starting distance to the racers who are slower than the scratch racer; in this system a higher handicap is more of an advantage.

Since the AI was playing scratch (the normal, unmodified play style), it seems odd to say it had a handicap. Rather, the human had a positive handicap of two stones.

Youre just mixing up who has the handicap. The handicap gives starting distance to the slower racer, but its still the faster racer that has the handicap.

Yes, but the title has an ambiguous parse (a shift-reduce conflict):

X defeats (Y with Z)

or

(X defeats Y) with Z

with the latter usually understood as meaning X has Z, as far as I know.

Your father did not buy those so that isn't a counterexample to what the GP said. Clearly, something your father made with his own hands will have a different value to something he bought.

Maybe your responsibility is to push back against the pressure put on you to deliver short-term.

My version was Chesterton's Facehugger.

Something which, as soon as you discover it, you should immediately respond by trying to remove it, without asking questions about where it came from or what its purpose might be.

Do you have a real practical example of this? I have never encountered a real one that didn't turn out to be a fence in hindsight.

I have encountered many. For example if you find a password in plaintext in source control, you don't assume the person who put it there had a good reason, you assume they were deeply misguided.

I think a more likely scenario is that GPU time in the cloud will be very cheap. If LLM use/profitability doesn't follow the expected path, new deep learning applications could be heavily subsidised.

This sounds like you are urging people not to disregard racism when comparing superpower regimes.

Whataboutism is a very useful game to reveal whether people are being honest or not.

If someone is vocally complaining about country A doing some oppressive activity, while ignoring country B doing 100x the same activity, the comparison does not forgive or excuse country A, or make them right or admirable.

But it does allow us to conclude that the person complaining is biased. Either they don't care about the oppressive activity and want to attack country A for some other reason. Or they have a particular fondness for country B and will never accept that it does wrong. Or some variation on these.

Except it’s op posting whataboutism not me - their claim is that China has done nothing wrong to them with the implication that the USA has. I was highlighting that China indeed likely has done the things they’re complaining about.

Disagree. When tool limitations meant that this was the way people had to work, many people could do this.

It was much more inefficient, because it's easier to find bugs after compiling or running the code. But it is perfectly possible.

Even more extreme than that, if you were working on a large code base where compiling it took forever, or you needed to rely on a very slow CI pipeline, it became very important to git gud and write shit that worked first time in order to deliver when promised. I'd argue if you've never had one of those moments where you sunk a bunch of time into some changes and it all compiled/worked flawlessly the first time, you're missing out.

> When tool limitations meant that this was the way people had to work, many people could do this.

Sorry when have you ever had to write code without being able to compile it? Tools have never been that limited.