Glass bottles are ubiquitous as is Public drinking in Germany. They have a pfand program that gives money for recycling bottles where the bottles are literally cleaned and refilled not melted down.
So either, you return the bottles for some pocket money or you leave the bottle by a trashcan for someone (usually a homeless person) to collect all the bottles and make a few bucks for food and a shower.
It's actually a bit taboo to smash a bottle because of this.
If you build a product that is too expensive to be competitive, nobody is going to buy it. You will not earn money and will not be able to pay workers salaries.
So if I ask ChatGpt about bears and in the middle of explaining their diet it tells me something about how much they like porridge and in the middle of habitat it tells me they live in a quaint cabin in the woods, that's ... True?
Statistically we certainly have a lot of words about 3 bears and their love for porridge. That doesn't mean it's true, it just means it's statistically significant. If I asked someone a scientific question about bears and they told me about Goldilocks, id think it was bullshit.
If that were the case, then you are right.. However, the current crop of LLMs seem to be good at understanding the context.
A scientific data point about bears is unlikely to have Goldilocks in there (unless talking about evolution of life and Goldilocks zone). You can argue that there is meaning hidden in words that is not captured by words themselves in a given context - psychic knowledge as opposed to reasoned out knowledge. That is a philosophical debate.
Words don't carry meaning. Meaning exists in how words are or are not used together with other words. That is, in their.... statistical relationships to each other!
ChatGPT has enough dimensions in its latent space to represent and distinguish between the various meanings of porridge and is able to be informed by the Goldilocks story without switching to it mid-sentence.
It's actually a good example of what I have in mind by saying human text isn't random. The Goldilocks story may not be scientific, but it's still highly correlated with scientific truth about matters like food, bears, or the daily lives of people. Put yourself in the shoes of an alien trying to make heads or tails of that story, you'll see just how many things in it are not arbitrary.
From what I hear, it really feels like parents are more willing to homeschool than to be engaged with their children's education.
You thinking your kid needs some additional sauce to not be "average". Rad, teach them that at home. What about sending your kid to school prevents you from doing that?
I'm not saying school is perfect. But lately Parents care more than students about getting an "A" and if not it's the "Damn Teacher's" fault.
They want to protect their kids from the discomfort of not doing well in school. When they should be working with their student to help develop their talents.
The codebase at my job has far too many abstractions/layers for things that do not provide any benefit for being abstract. It was simply done because it was the "coderly" thing to do.
I do agree that at the least it makes sense to separate out repository logic.
Maybe a better quote that shows its not due to product contamination:
> One of the men, who was 64 years old and smoked cannabis and tobacco, reported having a severe bat infestation in his attic that left behind a thick layer of guano, which he inspected several times and planned to use as cannabis fertilizer, the researchers wrote.
