With Claude specifically I've grown confident they have been sneakily experimenting with context compression to save money and doing a very bad job at it. However for this same reason one shot batch usage or one off questions & answers that don't depend on larger context windows don't seem to see this degradation.
It's weird how "rights" went from "the government can't do X to you" to "the government can force private actors to do Y (but these rules don't apply to us)."
A lot of anti-vaccination people are skeptics; they don't trust the information being given to them by authoritative sources. The government deliberately withholding information, especially if done with the intent you described, would, without question, reinforce their skepticism.
So considering that, I suspect the loss of life would increase in the long run.
Weapons need to be replaced, even ones never used. To be capable of scaling production you need at least some degree of production constantly simmering in the background. Yet even then, there is a limit to how much you can scale up on demand.
The best and cheapest weapons are the ones never used, but making no weapons at all is the most expensive choice in the end.
The problem is you have these hugely expensive facilities like the tank plant in Lima that's pretty much only good for making tanks. Transitioning manufacturing to production lines that can be economically kept online because they make non-tank products when we're not fighting anyone is the way to go.
There's a ton of work going on in this area, and has been for a while (check out DARPA's AVM project for some of it).
Ten or fifteen years back, I had an ambition to buy such a vehicle and drive it around at Burning Man. I eventually settled for a deuce-and-a-half, which caused enough struggle and frustration that I'm glad I never actually bought a tank.
The conventional wisdom is that you need to buy several military vehicles in order to get and keep one up and running. Some things are going to come broken, some things will inevitably break, and the replacement parts aren't exactly at your local auto parts shop.
I'm not sure there is any law against owning an unarmed tank. But for "dangerous and unusual" weapons themselves, an important case is from 1939 - Miller vs USA. [1] And it's absurdly weird. Basically the defendant was a thug with a penchant for snitching on everybody.
In his final case, which he also snitched during, he argued that a law he had been charged under (a firearms regulation law) was unconstitutional. The judge who heard his case was very much in favor of the gun control law and had made numerous public statements as such, but he also likely knew that the law was on very shaky constitutional ground, and had been fishing for a test case to advance it. And he found that in Miller.
So he concurred with Miller about the law's unconstitutionality! That resulted in the case being appealed up to the Supreme Court. Conveniently for the state, neither Miller or his defense representation appeared. So it was argued with no defense whatsoever. And Miller was found shot to death shortly thereafter, which wasn't seen as particularly suspicious given his snitching habits. And that case set the ultimate standard that's still appealed to, to this very day.
This is made even more ironic by the fact that the weapon he was being charged for possession of as being 'dangerous and unusual' was just a short barrel shotgun, which was regularly used in the military.
> I’ve never really understood how the logic of the second amendment doesn’t extend to tanks and nukes.
Probably because if people could buy tanks to protect themselves, then the police would also need tanks to deconflict a situation where someone with a tank is upset and the damages are a bit higher when tank rounds start flying around. Imagine two neighbors getting into it in a a town, not to mention a city.
Even portable nukes are a stretch in the logic of "I need to protect my home" from intruders, not to mention the hundred kiloton yield ones.
The second amendment to the US Constitution doesn't concern itself with home defense justifications, but only with "we need to scare up a military force, right now". The "right way" to forbid tanks and tac nukes as arms that the people can own would have been to amend the Constitution with something that specifies the limits in some way, but instead we got creative interpretations of "shall not be infringed" to mean "can be infringed as long as a law or agency regulation is produced at either a federal or state level". Which is odd, as GP noted.
People can and do own tanks. Since they are giant (hard to park), slow moving, consume a lot of fuel, tend to need expensive maintenance, and can't be operated on many roads due to weight / vehicle restrictions, few people want to do this.
As far as nuclear bombs go... there are restrictions on owning fissile material in general that would preclude owning enough to have a working bomb.
What is more critical as Ukraine has shown is ammunition, ie artillery shells, and of course any anti-drone ammunition (missiles are extremely expensive solution that should be reserved for ballistic missiles and not cheap drones).
More tanks on Ukraine's side wouldn't change current battlefield massively, drones limit how much use from tanks you can get. If you can scale your production to 10-50x within weeks then all is fine but thats almost impossible practically.
If anybody thinks we are heading for a peaceful stable decade without need of such items in massive numbers must have had head buried in the sand pretty deep.
I'd argue their brand might be too strong, ChatGPT has already begun to enter the same semantic space as "Velcro". Everyone I know seems to have tried it yet quickly you begin to realize that for most people ChatGPT == LLM, it seems everyone is using "ChatGPT" on completely different platforms.
In the end, regardless of technical understanding, people will always shop around on price if the feature set is similar enough I suppose.
The thing is, laypeople aren't using anything other than Google Search even for LLM answers.
If I want an LLM answer to "is erythritol bad for you", I'm not firing up ChatGPT. I'm just typing it into Google, and the LLM answer it spits out is pretty good.
ChatGPT needs to be significantly more compelling for most people to use it for one-shot LLM answers over Google Search. And the minute Google removes the one-shottedness of its search answers, it's over for ChatGPT.
Imo ChatGPT is just "a feature not a product", in the search engine space, as the adage goes.
I have no idea on the data, but anecdotally I'd dispute this. Regular folks in my life (i.e. non-techies) routinely talk to an LLM and use it to answer questions that 5 years ago they'd have searched for.
The techies are the ones who are steering clear and sticking with search engines in my experience.
ChatGPT though isn’t where the profit id going to come from. Businesses using LLMs are and Amazon (AWS) is not selling access to Bedrock and neither is Google (GCP). Models are becoming a commodity. *Every* implementation I’ve done one of the requirements is to easily be able to switch between multiple models
Wait so when Europeans complain about American cheese, they are talking about Kraft/Velveeta? I always thought of those as their own independent thing, do they not purchase their cheese at the deli? Most foods exported across the Atlantic are not going to be the fresh kind...
They purchase European cheeses given that most American cheese types are descended from European cheeses; cheddar is English and blue is descended from English Stilton.
Your reply doesn't answer my question and seems to imply things I can't understand. Are you suggesting people in Europe simply use the same kind of cheese with everything? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps you have never bought cheese at a deli? There happen to be many kinds.
Your last point is even more confusing, why would the fact that chedder and blue cheese originate from England have anything to do with this? It's like random trivia you interlaced here, it's very strange. I can't seem to grok it.
They don’t buy American cheese, the melty product. They actually don’t buy much American (of origin) cheese at all at their delis because American origin cheeses are all descended from the diverse array of European cheeses, and there are melty, non-sodium citrate European cheeses. So yes, the most common form of American cheese found is the Kraft/Velveeta variety and that is really mostly aimed at expats nostalgic for it.
Europe exports $2.8bn of dairy to the US. The reverse is only $167m of trade.
Considering how protective Europe is of it's markets I'm not surprised their dairy imports are small. They even treat town/village names as a kind of trademark to facilitate this, leading to much confusion (I will die on this hill right next to them).
I've tried many kinds of the imported European cheese, I enjoy the variety and gimicky stuff, one noteworthy one was this coffee cheese which was surprisingly tasty. Ultimately it sits right next to an equally diverse array of domestic cheese brands which are of the same quality. "New York Steakhouse" usually makes my favorites.
However Kraft and Velveeta are usually in their own section with the sealed imported cold cuts that taste like plastic. It would be ignorant for me to judge Euros on those but I guess many Euros do exactly that when they see Kraft? It's like space food. Real cheese is purchased at the deli counter or in chunks.
This is precisely why the federal government shouldn't have as much power as it currently does in my opinion. Every layer of indirection is reduction in representation. If not for the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 it wouldn't be as bad, but as things currently are, I see polarization as inevitable.
Do recognize that we already have many, many levers to pull to remove an administration that is not acting in the best interest of the people
The problem is:
1) We never actually want to pull the levers
2) While some early politicians expressed concern about party politics, for nearly 250 years there have been very few actual changes that recognize the harm of very cohesive party politics. If anything, changes were made to further entrench the system (the competitive game of admitting states in the 19th century, rules that only recognize 2 major political parties at the state and federal level, etc)
I like Telegram because it gets my friends & family to not do everything in SMS or iMessage. If I'm the only one using it, what's the point after all? Feature-wise, the app is nice to use, and one I can use on all platforms, even Linux.
Since it has a public API, I can easily make a custom frontend if I ever want to. Most social media does not offer this or tries to lock you into their shitty ecosystem.
I basically just treat it as unencrypted, but the pretend encryption features at least puts the company in a position where blatantly selling data would be a liability. In this respect, I place it on the same level as WhatsApp. Because even if WhatsApp has solid encryption, all it takes is one forced update from Meta to undo all that. They are like the inverse of each other.
My uncle is the only one I know who refused to use Telegram, insisting Signal was better and because he didn't want to use something with vague connections to Russia. Yet even he did not actually use Signal, and simply insisted if we should all switch to something it's either that or he sticks to SMS. So well, when I couldn't sell Signal to anyone else, Telegram it is, sorry uncle, but Verizon is pretty transparent about how they sell all my data.
Vague only if you don't follow the news. Telegram has added "third-party verification" [1] around January 2025 which conveniently and accidentally coincided with time when Russian authorities made it mandatory to register social network channels having more than 10K subscribers (I was secretly hoping Telegram would instead hide the subscriber count). Such channels are required to add a government bot with high privileges for verification. Note that announce for 3P verification doesn't mention Russia at all and contains some unrealistic examples instead, like a fictional game "Great Theft Starship" channel verified by "Bug-free Agency". Who on Earth would need that.
But to be fair, the western companies are the same, once government hinted they need more control, the companies rushed to introduce face-based "age verification" which allows identification. I would rather use some other body part for this.
That's because Russia/Ukraine/Belarus are heavily on Telegram, everything is there, all blogs, chats, memes, friends etc. since the US sites are almost-blocked and the Russian ones (VK, RuTube etc.) have been managed down to complete unusability. They couldn't afford losing the key blogs because of this law since Russia is heavily pushing Max messenger and there was a chance that it would be the only permitted thing.
People using Telegram doesn't bother me. People calling Telegram secure or "more secure than Signal" does.
But I'm curious, what makes Telegram an easier sell to your friends and family? I've gotten most people to switch over to Signal and the hardest problem is just getting them to use another app. I would be surprised if the API is the killer feature lol. And very few people seem to be concerned with the phone number thing with Signal. So I'm just curious, what is the features that normal people are missing?
> Since it has a public API, I can easily make a custom frontend if I ever want to.
Note that you need to get an API key for that, and there are additional conditions for getting it (for example, you cannot remove ads in your version, you cannot remove Instagram-like "stories", and so on).
reply