I'm ex-Tesla (Energy) and I'm shocked at how a lot of my former colleagues are still there. Their morals and ethics must really be for sale to have stayed, shame.
As someone who has been hiring the past six months, the candidate pool has been absolutely abysmal. Slop resumes, misrepresentations, bad interviewing skills, etc. I'm baffled at the other end at how much inbound crap there is.
Observables has moved to WHATWG [1] and been implemented in Chrome, although I don't know if the other browsers have expressed any interest (and there's still some issues [2] to be worked through).
But Observables really do not solve the problems being talked about in this post.
Right, you're the 2nd most liberal muni in Illinois after us. But Wilmette still has theirs, just like River Forest still has their ALPRs. I think a lot of munis will drop Flock, because of the bad PR, but they're just going to stand up no-name ALPRs.
(For people unfamiliar with Chicagoland, Oak Park borders Chicago to its west and is like our version of Park Slope, and Evanston, which houses Northwestern University, borders Chicago to the North and is like our Westchester County.)
I was pretty irritable about us cancelling our Flock contract. We did a metric fuckton of regulation on our cameras; I think we may have had the most sophisticated ALPR regulation of any ALPR in the country (granted, that's a statement about how little regulation there is of them, but still). We could have disabled our cameras but kept the contract, kept our standing as a municipality that uses Flock, and then shopped our ordinances and police general orders to the neighboring municipalities.
Instead, we performatively cancelled our contract, while remaining 4.5 square miles surrounded on all sides by totally unregulated ALPRs.
You're being downvoted but you aren't necessarily wrong. Javascript is probably one of the most approachable functional-like languages without being dogmatically functional.
As a longtime Scala lover, I’m so happy to see this. Everyone in here hemming and hawing about version incompatibilities, build tooling and such conveniently forget the warts of other languages and their ecosystems. Scala is an incredible language, especially for the language being so flexible, which is a strength, not a weakness.
Most serious researchers want to work on interesting problems like reinforcement learning or robotics or RNN or dozen other avant-garde subjects. None want to work on "boring" LLM technology, requiring significant engineering effort and huge dataset wrangling effort.
This is true - Ilya got an exit and is engaged in serious research, but research is by its nature unpredictable. Meta wanted a product and to compete in the AI market, and JEPA was incompatible with that. Now LeCun has a lab and resources to pursue his research, and Meta has refocused efforts on LLMs and the marketplace - it remains to be seen if they'll be able to regain their position. I hope they do - open models and relatively open research are important, and the more serious AI labs that do this, the more it incentivizes others to do the same, and keeps the ones that have committed to it honest.
Attentive outsider and acquaintance of a couple people who are or were employed there. Nothing I'm saying is particularly inside baseball, though, it's pretty well covered by all the blogs and podcasts.
Machine Learning Street Talk and Dwarkesh are excellent. Various discord communities, forums, and blogs downstream of the big podcasts, and following researchers on X keeps you in the loop on a lot of these things, and then you can watch for random interviews and presentations on youtube when you know who the interesting people and subjects are.
A vote for T is not a vote for every dimension of T.
In fact, all the data shows that the economy was the absolute top issue by a huge margin.
There's good reason to believe that not only would any Republican have gotten similar or better results, but that if it had been a Republican in power, that any Democrat would've gotten similar or better results.
Incumbents got smacked (far harder than Trump v Harris) in every election in the world in 2024, which is concordant with a long history of incumbents getting smacked during periods of high inflation.
> A vote for T is not a vote for every dimension of T.
Does. Not. Matter.
When you vote for T you know you are getting all of T.
> In fact, all the data shows that the economy was the absolute top issue by a huge margin.
Sure, and the poorly educated overwhelmingly chose to believe the lies they were told because they were attractive, and were taken advantage of. It doesn't matter. Lets say they were single issue voters on the economy, well, they still voted for T knowing all of what that entails.
Then there was no sense in you pointing out that a vote for T is not a vote for every dimension of T, since pointing out the obvious and gets another answer pointing out the obvious in response.
> That's totally irrelevant as to whether the current actions are actually popular.
You've chosen to rely on a single poll that supports your contention that they aren't, when pretty much every single other source of info is contrary to that.
You want to put all your faith in a poll, that's on you. There isn't much for us to discuss so I'd appreciate it if you stopped replying to me, so we don't just go around in circles.
Well it’s directly relevant to the claim “most Rs voted for T (fact) therefore you can infer most Rs support T_{specific policy}.”
Just simple logic!
No, I am actually not relying on a single poll. Pretty much all polls, even those with a conservative bent, converge on my claim and dispute yours.
This can’t possibly be news to you, otherwise you’d be sharing evidence to the contrary.
Instead you’re just openly declaring your own inability/unwillingness to assess information quality, and being proud of it?
Strange interaction indeed!
I can think of a few motivations one would have to knowingly deceive themselves into believing the immigration enforcement actions are popular, and all of those motivations are bad. Even aside from the basic violation of intellectual honesty.
> Instead you’re just openly declaring your own inability/unwillingness to assess information quality, and being proud of it?
That's your interpretation, which is far from reality. I think the big difference here is you put way more value on polls than is warranted. It's not like you've provided a ton of sources, either.
I likely won't be relying to you further, as I don't see the point. Cheers.
