Babies. 8% of the patients under that category are Age 0
Edit: the full billing code is "Obstetric and gynaecological devices associated with adverse incidents" Billing code Y76 "describes the circumstance causing an injury, not the nature of the injury."
So injuring a baby during delivery with forceps would result in this code.
the carve out is weird and usually open-source does not say, no to the navy using it BUT, it's OK for DARPA ...
> Military Use: Use by or for any military organization or for any military purpose, including but not limited to projects sponsored or paid for by military organizations, or use by the U.S. Department of Defense (except for DARPA), U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, or any foreign counterparts of the foregoing.
Given the ambiguity of the phrase "military use" when the military does, in-fact, use it for things the military does - I am not confident in the slightest with Arduino's use of language here.
> Military Use: Use by or for any military organization or for any military purpose, including but not limited to projects sponsored or paid for by military organizations, or use by the U.S. Department of Defense (except for DARPA), U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, or any foreign counterparts of the foregoing.
Indeed. Also because any big organisation or corporation can both do evil and good. Often research projects with guarantees to release knowledge or some other improvements such as to software projects under a permissive licence.
i wrote the article, just go ahead and call me shady and leave out other people at the company. limor will be back online next week after recovering (just had a kid) and you can call her shady too.
But you did not sign the article? I don't understand this.
IMO it would have just been easier to simply sign it. (With signing I mean mentioning who specifically wrote a blog entry; and also ideally the time as well.)
those were previous blocks and a couple of banned people assumed it was that, it was not, and since then we mute and document blocks with our social team. regardless, a block from what, 4 years ago, hurt someone that bad, twitter really did hurt people.
Their definition of "the platform" in the TOS is verbose and has weird grammar. I can see how people came away with a different understanding.
> User shall not translate, decompile or reverse-engineer the Platform, or engage in any other activity designed to identify the algorithms and logic of the Platform’s operation, unless expressly allowed by Arduino or by applicable license agreements;
> The Site is part of the platform developed and managed by Arduino, which allows users to take part in the discussions on the Arduino forum, the Arduino blog, the Arduino User Group, the Arduino Discord channel, and the Arduino Project Hub, and to access the Arduino main website, subsites, Arduino Cloud, Arduino Courses, Arduino Certifications, Arduino Docs, the Arduino EDU kit sites to release works within the Contributor License Agreement program, and to further develop the Arduino open source ecosystem (collectively, the “Platform”).
I'm pretty sure that is the point. Legal ambiguity to say whatever they can vaguely in public but in court they will make it encompass the entire world.
> The two companies reportedly signed an agreement [in 2023] stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits.
They didn't have a better definition of AGI to draw from. The old Turing test proved to not be a particularily good test. So lacking a definition money was used as a proxy. Which to me seems fair. Unless you've got a better definition of AGI that is solid enough to put in a high dollar value contract?
That's true, but the $100 billion requirement is the only hard qualification defined in earlier agreements. The rest of the condition was left to the "reasonable discretion" of the board of OpenAI. (https://archive.is/tMJoG)
It's kind of sad, but I've found myself becoming more and more this guy whenever someone "serious" brings up AI in conversation: https://www.instagram.com/p/DOELpzRDR-4/
I quit Google last year because I was just done with the incessant push for "AI" in everything (AI exclusively means LLMs of course). I still believe in the company as a whole, the work culture just took a hard right towards kafkaville. Nowadays when my relatives say "AI will replace X" or whatever I just nod along. People are incredibly naive and unbelievably ignorant, but that's about as new as eating wheat.
HN has big problem with reading comprehension. First of all $100B is likely what Microsoft demanded on top of what AGI is defined by OpenAI, which is “ highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work” - [0]. Secondly that is no longer part of this revised agreement, replaced with a review by a panel of experts.
This is the most sick implementation of Goodhart's Law I've ever seen.
>"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
What appalls me is that companies are doing this stuff in plain sight. In the 1920s before the crash, were companies this brazen or did they try to hide it better?
that's very different from OpenAI's previous definition (which was "autonomous systems that surpass humans in most economically valuable tasks") for at least one big reason:
This new definition likely only triggers if OpenAI's AI is substantially different or better than other companies' AI. Because in a world where 2+ companies have similar AGI, both would have huge income but the competition would mean their profit margins might not be as large. The only reason their profit would soar to 100B+ would be because of no competition, right?
It doesn't seem to say 100B a year. So presumably a business selling spoons will also eventually achieve AGI. Also good to know that the US could achieve AGI at any time by just printing more money until hyperinflation lets openai hit their target.
Nice unlock to hyperinflate their way to $100B. I'd buy an AGI spoon but preferably before hyperinflation hits. I'd expect forks to outcompete the spoons though.
No. When you're thinking about questions like these, it is useful to remember that multiple (probably dozens) professional A-grade lawyers have been paid considerable sums of actual money, by both sides, to think about possible loopholes and fix them.
No. "Pro" subscriptions have nothing to do with AGI, my pet GPS tracker sells those.
We're talking about things that would make AGI recognizable as AGI, in the "I know it when I see it" sense.
So things we think about when the word AGI comes up: AI-driven commercial entity selling AI-designed services or products, AI-driven portfolio manager trading AI-selected stocks, AI-made movie going at the boxoffice, AI-made videogame selling loads, AI-won tournament prizes at computationally difficult games that the AI somehow autonomously chose to take part in, etc.
Don't worry, it'll be relevant ads, just like google. You're going to love when code output is for proprietary libraries and databases and getting things the way you want will involve annoying levels of "clarification" that'll be harder and harder to use.
I kind of meant this as a joke as I typed this, but by the end almost wanted to quit the tech industry all together.
Just download a few SOTA (free) open-weights models well ahead of that moment and either run them from inside your living-room or store them onto a (cheap) 2TB external hard drive until consumer compute makes it affordable to run them from your living room.
>This is an important detail because Microsoft loses access to OpenAI’s technology when the startup reaches AGI, a nebulous term that means different things to everyone.
> and then giving up things produced off that investment when the company grows?
An investor can be stubborn about retaining all rights previously negotiated and never give them up... but that absolutist position doesn't mean anything if the investment fails.
OpenAI needs many more billions to cover many more years of expected losses. Microsoft itself doesn't want to invest any more money. Additional outside investors don't want to add more billions in funding unless Microsoft was willing to give up a few rights so that OpenAI has a better competitive position against Google Gemini, Anthropic, Grok etc.
When a startup is losing money and desperately needs more capital, a new round of investors can chip away at rights the previous investor(s) had. Why would previous original investors voluntarily agree to give up any rights?!? Because their investment is at risk if the startup doesn't get a lot more money. If the original investor doesn't want to re-invest again and would rather others foot the bill, they sometimes have to be a little flexible on their rights for that to happen.
If Microsoft doesn't believe that OpenAI will achieve AGI by 2030 or that there's a chance that OpenAI won't be the premiere AI company in four years, the deal looks less like a lose and more like they are buying their way out of a risky bet. On the other hand, if OpenAI does well, then Microsoft have a 27% stake in the company and that's not nothing.
This looks more like Microsoft ensuring that they'll win, regardless of how OpenAI fairs in the next four to six years.
I assume that first refusal required price matching. If the $250B is at a higher price than whatever AWS, GCP, etc. were willing to offer, then it could be a win for Microsoft to get $250B in decent margin business over a larger amount of break even business.
If there is need of more capital, you either keep your share without the capital injection and the share goes to zero or you let in more investors, dilute your share, but its overall value increases. Or you can let in more people and sign an agreement that part of the new money will be paid to you in the form of services that you provide.
Bang on. LPL himself uses a slightly modified Kwikset lock. The modification seizes the lock if someone tries to pick it. I'm the video, he says it isn't to stop all break-ins, but to stop non-destructive break-ins.
At least one company I worked at purposefully crafted these job descriptions so that no one would be qualified. They'd find the most obscure parts of our tech stack, require hands on experience with each library, knowledge of our niche, and so on.
You basically had to be already working for us to have the required experience.
The companies are just trying to work with the flawed system that is place. Even if a role is in shortage, it’s impossible for a company by itself to prove that there is a shortage. If in the total market, there are 10000 jobs for “position X” and there are 8000 total US citizens that qualify for that role, if you are a company that has an H1B for the other 2000 positions, there is no way you can prove there is a shortage. The system requires you to put out an advertisement and prove there are no US citizens. The minute you put out a generic requirement, at least the few people from the pool of 8000 will apply even if they are employed in the same role because… drum role…people switch jobs. So even if overall there is a shortage for a specific position, there is no way an individual company can prove it when they are required to actively recruit for the position.
The system is flawed and it forces immigrants and companies to work with the rules that are set. And people who don’t fully understand the system are angry about it.
You have a good point that it's very hard to define a shortage by lack of applications, when there is always a certain amount of churn.
It would be much better to simply define this as an economic test:
1) Are the prevailing wages for a position rising faster than inflation?
2) Is unemployment in the position both low and remaining flat?
Seems hard to claim a shortage if either of those is false, and there is little gaming to be done for simple government reported labor statistics, recent news notwithstanding.
The funny thing is that prevailing wage determination is also done as part of the process and if your wages are lower than median, your application has a higher risk or audit and/or rejection. No reason why you can’t update the process to be more data driven, they already have all the information they need.
If this was to be implemented, you would see a large lobbying effort by the tech companies around how unemployment is calculated and these numbers would end up being under-reported to keep the supply of cheap labor coming in.
You will also start to see people with ties to big tech being hired to actually compile the data.
You're missing the entire point of a free labour market system. If there are 10000 jobs for "position x" and only 8000 citizens who qualify, then companies are forced to compete with each other to attract those workers. Usually by paying higher wages. Or companies are forced to train people to get qualified workers. Can't do either? Then shut down your business and retire in eternal shame for being a worthless failure.
That's the entire idea, that's what a nation is built for. A "shortage" of workers is exactly the desired result in a healthy free market nation.
It's hard for me to believe that anyone working in a tech industry hasn't seen this kind of thing happening or heard managers/owners talking about gaming the system. When people say they've never heard of it or don't think it happens, I wonder if they're incredibly naive or being evasive.
In many places it's talked about only by immigration lawyers and people who must be involved.
If you're not very active in recruiting (especially at a sizeable company), it's not hard to be outside of the circles where those conversations are happening.
This happens at a much smaller level too. We knew an au pair that the host family particularly liked, and wanted her long term. A typical au pair contract is for 1 year, maximum is 2. They worked with an immigration attorney to craft a "job" that she was uniquely qualified for, went through the whole dance, and got her into the system. She stayed with them for the next 10 years. They covered room and board, but she worked for free otherwise; getting her in the door and on the way to citizenship was her "pay".
I witnessed employers doing that to get people greencards too. Claim the exact combination of their stack plus experience in the domain is a requirement. Only way to meet that is to have been working the job.
This is referred to as tayloring and it is not allowed. Furthermore you have to have the experience for the job from before you started working for the sponsoring employer, so tayloring can only target your prior experience, not what you learn on the job.
At least when I went through the process the reqs had to be crafted such that applying h-1b employee needed to possess them before the current gig so unless that has changed in the last 15y I call bullshit on your claim.
As someone who used to work in contract recruiting, hiring requirements that made absolutely no sense and were fishing for H1-B eligibility were common. I'm still adamant about the idea that an H1 should be paid at least 120% of the average salary for the position at the hiring company. If it's THAT hard to hire an American, then clearly you should need to pay more for such rare expertise.
Trump is at least taking a step in the right direction by changing the H1-B lottery system to favor more highly paid and skilled candidates, but as you say to remove the current rampant abuse it should be made mandatory to pay more than the market rate for the position.
Personally I'd just scrap the H1-B program altogether, and let the free market sort it out. H1-B is almost as bad as simply exporting jobs via outsourcing. Laws should be made to benefit US citizens, not US companies and shareholders.
H1B is worse than exporting jobs via outsourcing. With outsourcing we are only competing with other countries for jobs, but with H1B we get to compete with other countries for housing (in our own towns) too.
With outsourcing it's basically impossible to compete since the country being outsourced to has lower salaries for a reason - because they have a lower cost of living and people can afford to accept lower salaries. If you are a US citizen facing US cost of living (housing, real estate taxes, college costs, healthcare, etc, etc), then how can you compete with someone who can afford to do the job for way less ?!
At least with the H1-B they are paying US taxes and spending at least something in the US economy, but outsourcing is also taking US corporate profits, mostly coming from US consumers, and sending it overseas to benefit a different country!
Trump has said that US companies should be more patriotic in their hiring, but nothing will happen without changes to the law or tax code.
I do feel a bit bad for H-1Bs. When you think about it, we’re pulling so much top talent out of India. If the U.S., Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Germany weren’t giving out these visas so easily, maybe India would be in a better position to develop its own economy, infrastructure, and institutions, instead of exporting its workforce. Their best engineers, consultants, analysts, all leaving to work in Western corporations like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Deloitte, PNC Bank, Chevron, Shell, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, EY, KPMG, PwC, IBM, Oracle, Apple, Qualcomm, Uber, Cisco, Salesforce, Tesla, Adobe, Intel, Nvidia, Bloomberg, Dell, Visa, British Petroleum, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta, LinkedIn, VMware, ServiceNow, Snowflake, Intuit, Morgan Stanley, Capital One, American Express, Stripe, Cigna, meanwhile, their home country loses the people who might be solving real domestic challenges. It’s not ideal. Maybe India could’ve used a few of them.
I mentioned those companies above because I’m not sure how to go about arguing it. This is a 40 year long struggle that no politician or president wants to talk about. We have gotten to the point where the companies I listed are 70 percent Indian <Fannie Mae, Freddie>. H1B abuse is clearly rampant, but it’s, I think, a nepotistic hiring spree they are going through. How is Fannie Mae 70% Indian? They can’t hire that many H-1Bs. How is Deloitt, and all the companies listed the the same? We are being colonized I’m trying to appeal to the masses.
The companies do that because they already had an applicant from abroad for this role they accepted. And now they must wait out the period for job posting to be live before inviting the applicant.
The law itself is pretty idiotic. Why would an employer give up a well accustomed well proven candidate for the sake of some random guy, waste money to recruitment and cross fingers that the employee would actually join and perform ?
It is like giving up a lottery ticket you have won for another lottery ticket.
Also, the law mandates certain compliance steps which the employers do. There is no expectation that they should actually hire someone else unless the compliance steps are violated. So everything is working exactly as intended.
This PERM process and law has harmed countless american citizens and employers both. Citizens end up applying for jobs they are not going to get and HR wastes time on resources over candidates they are not going to hire.
A better solution would be to hand a greencard to any immigrant who has worked for 5 years and has earned a certain high salary as proven by the W2.
This whole circus can be gotten rid off if you ask me.
Better for everyone because the talented H1B employee is no longer shackled to their employer and can leave demanding a higher wage and raising wages for everyone.
Well you just answered why they don't/won't do this.
The H1B employees being shackled and thus having little to no leverage to demand higher compensation or better working conditions is (from the point of view of the companies abusing the system) a feature of the system, not a bug.
I guess you’re proposing eliminating the h1b program to raise wages. That would maybe work but our companies would theoretically be less competitive globally. If we’re going to allow immigration based on professional skills then these people should be fast tracked to having the same employment rights as natives otherwise it creates a subclass of workers that depress wages because those that belong to that group will be too risk adverse to ask for more money knowing that they’ll likely have to leave the country if they get let go.
As much as I hate the American health care system as a senior citizen, there is an out of pocket maximum that you can budget for if you have all of the parts.
From what I understand it’s Medicare Part A+B and either Part C or Medigap.
Of course private insurance especially for older Americans like Part C and Medigap is Byzantine if you actually need it and some doctors don’t accept Medicaid (low income) and a few don’t even accept Medicare.
I don’t know much from either first hand or second hand experience because my mom and dad (83 and 81) are under my mom’s teacher’s retirement insurance and between them (two pensions + social security) medical expenses are more of a nuisance than something that they stress about.
My comment had nothing to do with being a senior citizen.
If you're putting the maximum in your HSA each year, you're participating in a high-deductible healthcare plan.
> If you got your HSA-qualified HDHP through your employer, your average [premium] looked like $90 per month if you were single and $432 for your family.
> Median annual deductible for private industry workers participating in HDHP plans was $2,750.
> Average out-of-pocket maximum was $4,422 for single coverage.
Edit: the full billing code is "Obstetric and gynaecological devices associated with adverse incidents" Billing code Y76 "describes the circumstance causing an injury, not the nature of the injury."
So injuring a baby during delivery with forceps would result in this code.