No it isn't
Technically you are correct but the commenter you’re responding to means that with the amount of Western Governments spend on MS products and services, the are a d facto (if not de jure) state backed enterprise.
Readit NewsI think garbage collection memory management can be thought of a delete optimized database.
Only if you profoundly misunderstand what GC is.
Okta has been plagued by security issues [1], never heard of Ping Identity, Azure only makes sense if you get a sweetheart deal and are willing to deal with Azure's crap, and I'd never recommend anyone to use anything Google any more.
Ping Identity run the largest enterprise identity platforms on the planet after merging with ForgeRock last year. Think HSBC, JP Morgan Chase-scale.
SgtBastard commented on There's Just One Problem: AI Isn't Intelligent charleshughsmith.blogspot... · Posted by u/laktak
Humans learn dynamically and can apply patterns to problems across domains. I think these are a couple key capabilities we have that LLM's don't have (for example).
>Humas learn dynamically
In-context learning (Few Shot Prompting) is absolutely demonstrable by LLMs since GPT 3.5 at least.
> So if someone inherits a fully paid off house, they are only allowed to rent it for a fraction of the rent allowed for the mortgaged, identical property next door?
Idk, what do you think is fair? In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent. If you take out a mortgage that you can not service a mortgage with this rent-level, then you are at fault. On the contrary, if you don't have a mortgage, then you can pay yourself a higher salary for maintaining your rental unit.
However, if you "win the lottery" and get a house for free, don't you have the moral obligation to not maximize your rental income? You really don't need all this money (this discussion, btw, also goes into the nature of inheritance tax, where one could argue that a fair society should tax you in a way that forces you to take out a mortgage on the house you inherit - after all, you did not work for it)
The core of this is to what extend housing should be a part of a free market.
IMHO, there is plenty of opportunity right now - just move a out of the big cities and you get housing thrown at you. I do see an insistence on wanting to live in a few select cities followed by complaints that it is expensive.
> In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent.
Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock.
>Don’t you have a moral obligation
No.
> So if someone inherits a fully paid off house, they are only allowed to rent it for a fraction of the rent allowed for the mortgaged, identical property next door?
Idk, what do you think is fair? In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent. If you take out a mortgage that you can not service a mortgage with this rent-level, then you are at fault. On the contrary, if you don't have a mortgage, then you can pay yourself a higher salary for maintaining your rental unit.
However, if you "win the lottery" and get a house for free, don't you have the moral obligation to not maximize your rental income? You really don't need all this money (this discussion, btw, also goes into the nature of inheritance tax, where one could argue that a fair society should tax you in a way that forces you to take out a mortgage on the house you inherit - after all, you did not work for it)
The core of this is to what extend housing should be a part of a free market.
IMHO, there is plenty of opportunity right now - just move a out of the big cities and you get housing thrown at you. I do see an insistence on wanting to live in a few select cities followed by complaints that it is expensive.
> In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent.
Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock.
>Don’t you have a moral obligation
No.
This comment does take quite a number of steps to reach a conclusions.
Parent said that nobody should be able to profit, this will not eliminate the rental market. You can still own housing and rent it out and take a rent that covers your cost (including the work you need to do in order to rent it out).
This is already well established. Public housing also does not run on prayers and good intentions - and yet they manage to pay salary to contractors and run the administrative burden.
The only cost there is associated with public housing is the opportunity cost which is indeed something the parent commenter argues should never be a concern in areas regarding core human needs - like shelter.
So if someone inherits a fully paid off house, they are only allowed to rent it for a fraction of the rent allowed for the mortgaged, identical property next door? If a landlord wins the lottery, are they forced to lower the rent if they pay down their mortgage?
Public housing runs because the people administrating it have no disincentives to making poor decisions because ultimately it’s the tax payer who pays.
All this guarantees is a two-tier system. Owners and basic rental properties available.
Depends on the industry and use case.
For example, AI leveraged SOC is going to be operational within 3-5 years, and there goes 50-70% of jobs in that sector.
Others segments are significantly behind (robo-taxis) and I'm sure there are other segments much further ahead (call center automation), but the change is absolutely coming - not because of LLMs alone, but because the entire ecosystem around ML/AI is a 15 years old now, and there's an entire generation of SWEs that are just as competent as ML PhDs were 15 years ago.
>there goes 50-70% of the jobs in that sector.
Does this always follow though? Mass automation can just as easily make the existing staff far more effective, making the ROI easier to justify.
SgtBastard commented on Against the burden of knowledge theseedsofscience.pub/p/a... · Posted by u/mooreds
No one can live in a capital market without capital. Education has always been about capital markets - uneducated people are highly limited in their use. There has never been a school that was built for "free", it's always come from capital one way or another.
It used to be primarily private capital, people who believed in it's purpose. Outside of the top 1% Now nothing is built without students and taxes footing the bill.
If it cannot survive on its own merits then its existence is an abuse to the people it claims to support. Turn it into something else and let real solutions arise naturally.
> uneducated people are highly limited in their use.
>taxes footing the bill.
It sounds like it is surviving only its own merits, merely shifted in time.
(Admittedly, from the perspective of an Australian whose strongest institutions are all public and the private universities are a bit of a joke)
i.e. we've been educating people for 1,000s of years even without textbooks.
Education itself isn't primarily a technology problem. Treating it as such is an administrative failure, as is pursuing a technological solution in many scenarios that are first social in nature.