As an example, Linux distros say, Ubuntu got its project "names" as well as SEMVERs. But people rarely use project names but uses versions.
You tell me, I use "Jammy Jellyfish". I will be like WTF dood. You tell me 22.04 LT (which is one I use), oh yeah, that's a good one.
Same thing here. companies can call whatever SOTA whatever they want. But in the end people will refer to them as just Gemini 4 or Ultr/Pro/Lite however people like to use.
Just leave it to company's discretion. Don't enforce anything. People will figure out how to call it.
---
And wtf, a peaseant?
I use your so-stupidly-called ultra/med/lite but in diff situations, and when I use lite that doesn't mean I am peasant, I am being sensible
Ubuntu's release numbers are not semver, they're year and month. 22.04 is the April release from 2022. Your LT is redundant, all 04 releases from even-numbered years are LTS. And people do frequently refer to Ubuntu releases by the code name, though usually just the adjective and not the animal - jammy, noble, etc.
All polls are flawed. Remember last US pres election polls by CNN? Completely wrong. Why? Because they surveyed mostly left-"learing" participants.
Right and supposedly middle (this doesn't exist) media does the same.
That means we gotta find the average as you suggested.
---
Side note
> Given that Musk has absolutely destroyed the Twitter API for academic use
Why bring up Musk, when you can simply say, "Twitter lowered Academic API rate limit because ...". You sound like you need someone to blame not professional and politically motivated (yes the post is about the political poll but this shows the "bias" and his supposed poll will be biased depending on how he gathered data).
Twitter would have the same way of generating metrics for the justification as you are trying to justify the flaw in the poll outcome.
Most likely the decision is based on their internal metrics/dashboard report
- All reputable firms try get valid results, they have professionals, they know who they are talking to and the limits. What we see in the last 2-3 weeks of the elections are the polls they want to release however, those that err in one direction or another.
- They definitely accommodate for misrepresentation samples - if more of their respondents indicate 'registered republicans' than in the general public they will adjust.
- It's very hard to measure 1) the people that are hard to reach and statistically more likely to not trust pollsters and 2) likelihood of actual voting aka enthusiasm.
- there are plenty of centrist institutions and pollsters
- It's fair to call out Elon because he's making the policies
Twitter is just a bad way to measure anything except for the Zeitgeist of Twitter readers.
I am upvoting your comment for correcting my knowledge on CNN not doing their own polling.
Some I do not really agree, as reputable firms != trustworthy polls.
e.g. Check out Times magainzes "Best Inventions of the Year, John Termus" (https://time.com/collection/best-inventions/2026/apple-iphon...) wtf is that. Time magazine might be "reputable" but whatever they discuss is not trustworthy given Appl duo being crap.
TIME magazine is a tabloid-ish reader publication. It's popular editorial, not 'highly objective news'. Who TIME puts on their cover has nothing to do with the quality of the polls they might cite.
In 2021 Twitter was encouraging free academic use of the API [0].
This was in line with long standing behaviors in this space [1].
Musk bought Twitter in 2022. In 2023, they began substantially restricting API access versus how it had been for years.
It is not unfair at all to look at that timeline, look at Musk's acquisition as the biggest change that had happened to the company in that timeframe, and draw a relationship.
> Remember last US pres election polls by CNN? Completely wrong.
I do. I don't remember that at all. I think you might have some odd definition of completely wrong though.
But please, by all means, share these 100% wrong polls that showed, for example, Trump having 0% chance of winning. Most of the polls I saw were fairly accurate within their margin of error and made it clear the race was tight (which, in the end, it was). And nothing I've seen has changed that, but if you have polls from CNN specifically that you can point to, by all means.
The article states three reasons for doing so, but all of them are very cringe baity words.
Low paid workers are due to local economy government doing jack to improve their wages in the first place. In China, competition is high, thus low pay (with other reasons such as real estate crashes, etc)
Visualization makes sense but does not mean it's colonialism as colonialism requires forced intervention, and there is no such play here.
Cool project bad political motivated wordings in the post.
> “extracts low-wage labor from data workers in the Global South”
Jeez. The outrage-bait is dripping off of this sentence. Paying above the prevailing wage in a town for simple computer work, adding money to the local economy = extracting low-wage labor. It’s phrased like it’s sticking a syringe into Bangladesh and stealing their blood.
It the Copenhagen theory of ethics. If an AI company had no operations at all in the global south, no one would blame them for the global south's position. But if they hire anyone there, it doesn't matter if they're objectively improving conditions there, the fact that they've interacted at all means that they're responsible all the bad parts about it.
Low pay is partially a reason why people have off-shored their industries there. If the government is somewhat competent, they can use the increased amount of funds to get more investors, build more infrastructure, attract more people (workers, investors, even tourists) until the nation becomes wealthy enough that it's essentially first world in all but name.
Like Japan in the 80s, or Korea in the 2000s, Poland currently. It's a slow and painful process, but given a good enough government such as Singapore, it's possible to grind your way into a fairly well developed society given punitive laws, good infrastructure and public services, and a massive emphasis on intelligence.
Remember that not too long ago, children worked in factories in Britain and other developed countries, but they got rich enough to ban children from working so they would study for higher paid, intellectually challenging jobs.
> Low pay is partially a reason why people have off-shored their industries there.
Exactly. That is precisely the financial imperialism I'm criticizing. Instead of gunboats, it is capital that puts the Global South into servitude.
> Like Japan in the 80s, or Korea in the 2000s, Poland currently. It's a slow and painful process, but given a good enough government such as Singapore, it's possible to grind your way into a fairly well developed society given punitive laws, good infrastructure and public services, and a massive emphasis on intelligence.
This is an example of survivorship bias that is structurally limited to a few places. By the very nature of the system we find ourselves in, you will always need somewhere to exploit, somebody to do the shit work for shit wages.
The pitch you're making is basically "if you're lucky, you can become an exploiter, too!". No. We have to end the exploitation.
> Remember that not too long ago, children worked in factories in Britain and other developed countries, but they got rich enough to ban children from working so they would study for higher paid, intellectually challenging jobs.
Yes, now that Britain is rich enough, they make poorer people's kids work for them [0] [1]. That's exactly what people mean when they talk of colonialism as a form of capitalism, it's exactly why what you're proposing can only ever perpetuate exploitation, not solve it.
> It's possible to grind your way into a fairly well developed society given punitive laws, good infrastructure and public services, and a massive emphasis on intelligence.
Treating these as neutral axioms is an attempt to smuggle in ideological positions without any critical examination. Furthermore, the victim blaming frame of "it must be their own fault if they're exploited" ignores centuries of actual, old school guns and ships type of colonialism that set the stage for present conditions.
I agree with your concerns, but there's not a lot of economical systems that could quickly make poor societies reasonably wealthy in a short, or sustainable period of time.
I can only really see here, 2 fairly good types of government-economical ties in this world, and both of which are fleetingly rare, with only one type actually growing consistently.
I would say they are, in no particular order, the "East Asian Values" model as created/noted by Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, and the Mondragon Corporation by Father José María Arizmendiarrieta.
The "East Asian Values" model is often used for Singaporean or Chinese style state capitalism, but the Japanese and Koreans have also had a similar economies, and Taipei has flirted with some part of it through TSMC (although they don't own the company outright). This model is pretty good for getting a country rich somewhat quickly, but it does implicate a strong central government. They also tend to have a more Georgist type of tax system (which I think is generally not a bad idea to allow more wealth creation).
The Mondragon Corp on the other hand, while technically a private sector business, it's a full Co-op owned by the workers themselves and has a lot of relations with the Spanish Government. This arguably is the less "exploitative" type of government-economical system, but it also implicates a semi-homogenous society, at least one high trust enough to reasonably and responsibly manage a co-op, even in the most rural areas of Basque Spain. The only other similar economies, perhaps are the Ayllu system in Peru, tequio in Mexico, or other often informal collectivist (but certainly not communist) systems. (This could also pair well with general Neo-Distributism, and Georgism).
It should be noted however, that although the Basques were extremely poor, Spain was still a European society, and as such, did commit a lot of gunboat exploitative economies, most notably the conquest of the Americas.
Wealth creation, by definition, is somewhat exploitative. The good news, is that this type of exploitation therefore, unlike colonialism, actually gives a lot of power to the exploited over time as wealth is created.
My (mostly indigenous) grandparents were lucky to have worked in factories in order to escape farm life, but there were multiple close calls. I imagine it's something similar with all Industrializing societies, wherein a nation commits to an almost Faustian bargain of getting wealth at the cost of brutal working hours. But at some point, "Fordist" thinking prevails, where people either through protests, unions, and also to increase overall economic consumption, people get paid more, they start to live more comfortable lives as many begin to focus on skilled labor and intellectual work. It's not a simple overnight process, but wealth creation does imply first-world like living conditions might come fairly soon to a lot of nations, especially those that started in mass production based factories.
> How about they just don't treat their workers in the Global South as lesser than ones in rich countries, for starters?
When you say "lesser", isn't this just a question of regional pay disparity? Are you saying companies should be obligated to pay the same compensation in every region? Do you know how badly that would destroy the economies in the Global South?
Foreign companies suddenly increasing local wage levels isn't popular with local governments because it means all the local essential workers, doctors, government employees etc quit their jobs to work for the foreign company.
Its labor unions/movement that fund tech equity that provides database availability for the data visualization coming out of Brown.
It would make sense being that this is Brown with probably the most socially progressive view in the higher ed space. I didn't realize there was such a drive to tie this all together though.
How convenient for those who continue to participate in the generational exploitation of labor and funding of terror by foreign capital. Let's just pretend it doesn't exist and sweep it under the rug.
I would say it’s no less convenient for those that tend to overuse the word to label anything as colonialism or terrorism. It absolves them from building any sort of coherent and substantiated argument.
Same. I wish they would get the perspective of those that are doing this “awful” work. They might be completely happy doing a desk job for a decent local wage. Instead they explain the work as horrible and place pity on those forced to do the job. We don’t have enough perspective to know if those people feel like they’re being taken advantage of.
On a similar note; I worked for a pathologist when I was in college. I saw and handled all types of body parts. I helped in the morgue. When I talked to people about it they felt bad for me. I loved it and made twice as much money as anyone else I knew working in college. It was a great deal. You quickly become desensitized to the parts people think are awful. Most people in healthcare that see crazy stuff can attest to this.
Since there are no colonies involved, a better characterization would be: Free market capitalism under the rules-based order established by the US and its allies after the end of World War II. You could reasonably criticize that system, and many have, but it is not colonialism, except in the sense that colonialism is now used as a broad term for anything that feels exploitative.
That is colonialism. It's not AI colonialism, but it's a generic rich people colonialism that AI, and other industries, are taking advantage of, that causes such a wage disparity to exist in the first place.
Then that's not colonialism, it's just serfdom. Colonialism implies a foreign nation, but most countries workers are poor due to their own politicians and business leaders squeezing them for their own interest.
Sure, powers like the US and others still exact colonial-like force over smaller and weaker countries, for economic gain, but if the US would retreat from that colonial position tomorrow, the workers in those countries would not suddenly get higher wages, they'd just get more oppression from their own local robber barons, as it happened in every colonized country after the colonizers left.
But if you wanna grow the scope, we can say that we're all serfs of usury by the international banking system which runs on getting us addicted to debt which we and future generations are forced to pay off without being asked if we agree with it, which can be seen as a foreign imposed colonial power in a way, since no modern country can trade and operate without being part of it, whether they want to or not.
Pretty much. Humanity was always in a state of poverty and extreme wealth inequality. The last 80+ years since WW2 were a short exception from that which is why we're slowly reverting back to factory defaults with most of the resources in the hands of a select few.
"Sure, powers like the US and others still exact colonial-like force over smaller and weaker countries, for economic gain,"
that's definitionally colonilism under imperialism.
"but if the US would retreat from that colonial position tomorrow, the workers in those countries would not suddenly get higher wages, they'd just get more oppression from their own local robber barons, as it happened in every colonized country after the colonizers left."
not true, when colonizers leave of their "own volition", it's usually with a puppet government left behind called "friendly" that's essentially a proxy for colonial extraction. Nations that kick out the foreign influence under libertaory action often are sanctioned or invaded to try and topple them and revert to depedance on western intervention, but, when they succeed, rights and success often are much increased for the people in them, see "Human Rights in the USSR" by albert syzmenski, who uses only western sources for the book to steelman his position.
The western dependence happens through layers of coordinated and planned proxy vasselization. See the books "Unequal exchange" by Arghiri Emmanuel and "superimperilaism" by michael hudson for more details and scientific treatments of the question. "Inventing Reality" by Micheal Parenti might be another good read for you!
"But if you wanna grow the scope, we can say that we're all serfs of usury by the international banking system which runs on getting us addicted to debt which we and future generations are forced to pay off without being asked if we agree with it,"
Glad that one of the other sibling comments looked this quote up so I didn't have to. Fully "growing the scope:"
> For capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield, the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capitalism, and the exportation and investment of capital to countries with undeveloped and underdeveloped economies. In turn, that financial behaviour divides the world among monopolist business companies. In colonizing undeveloped countries, business and government will engage in geopolitical conflict over the exploitation of labour of most of the population of the world.
> Therefore, imperialism is the highest (advanced) stage of capitalism, requiring monopolies to exploit labour and natural resources, and the exportation of finance capital, rather than manufactured goods, to sustain colonialism, which is an integral function of imperialism.
> Moreover, in the capitalist homeland, the super-profits yielded by the colonial exploitation of a people and their economy permit businessmen to bribe native politicians, labour leaders and the labour aristocracy (upper stratum of the working class) to politically thwart worker revolt (labour strike) and placate the working class.
-- "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism"
"Then that's not colonialism, it's just serfdom. Colonialism implies a foreign nation, but most countries workers are poor due to their own politicians and business leaders squeezing them for their own interest."
This distinction collapses under the scientific understandings of imperialism and colonialism, linked above in more detail.
For the benefit of others, the correct spelling is: Szymanski.
Thank you for this voluminous comment, I'm reading through this and others that have been downvoted, and just wanted to show my appreciation, it's been insightful and educational. I've made notes of the books mentioned, and will be studying them over time to better understand our historical situation and possible future direction.
>not true, when colonizers leave of their "own volition", it's usually with a puppet government left behind called "friendly" that's essentially a proxy for colonial extraction.
When and where did that happen? When colonizers were kicked out by force, radical nationalists took power on the basis of "kicking out the oppressors/colonizers" who 100% weren't puppets of the original colonizers, but the contrary.
Case in point North Korea, Cuba and Iran and many African countries. Those regimes are 100% not US/UK puppets and yet they don't treat their people much nicer than they were under US/Western rule they revolted from. Quite the contrary, they're even worse off, because they don't know how to manage and maintain a modern industrial economy.
USSR soviet Marxist communism was designed as a antithesis to US/western capitalism, and its workers ended up more oppressed than workers in the US, and the USSR was a world power, not some small powerless country like Cuba or Iran that could be bullied by US sanctions into poverty and submission, so its poverty was entirely self inflicted by the mismanagement and incompetence communism and anti-capitalist systems of governance inevitably bring which only end up functioning under oppressive tyrannical rule, until they inevitably collapse.
China became a world power from a starving nation, because it also abandoned centralized controlled communism and switched a lot of its economy to free market capitalism under the rules of the "evil western imperialists colonizers" because that's better and it actually works for lifting people out of absolute poverty. Chairman Mao's policies only created more poverty.
Can I recommend a work by a certain Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, that was concerned with this exact mechanism and described it in detail?
Let me know if any of this sounds at all relevant to the situation we find ourselves in:
> For capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield, the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capitalism, and the exportation and investment of capital to countries with undeveloped and underdeveloped economies. In turn, that financial behaviour divides the world among monopolist business companies. In colonizing undeveloped countries, business and government will engage in geopolitical conflict over the exploitation of labour of most of the population of the world.
> Therefore, imperialism is the highest (advanced) stage of capitalism, requiring monopolies to exploit labour and natural resources, and the exportation of finance capital, rather than manufactured goods, to sustain colonialism, which is an integral function of imperialism.
> Moreover, in the capitalist homeland, the super-profits yielded by the colonial exploitation of a people and their economy permit businessmen to bribe native politicians, labour leaders and the labour aristocracy (upper stratum of the working class) to politically thwart worker revolt (labour strike) and placate the working class.
This was Wikipedia's tl; dr of "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism"
Could you rephrase your argument here? I'm having some trouble understanding this sentence fragment.
If you're trying to pull up some old trope about how people are choosing to get shit wages for shit work, then let me remind you that the alternative is starvation . Some fine choice.
> And you confused capitalism with colonialism.
I didn't confuse anything, I linked a famous piece of political theory positing they are interlinked phenomena.
> If you did that on purpose, you brought up whataboutism.
I'm also confused by what you are trying to say here. Who brought up whataboutism? I never spoke of it? Didn't you just bring it up? I'm confused.
> I aint playing your game diverting attention from my comment.
Nobody's diverting. I was directly engaging with it and providing some theory to further understanding and illustrate different perspectives on a term people sometimes get tripped up by.
It is telling you perceive anything but uncritical agreement as diversion. I would encourage you to bring the spirit of curiosity the guidelines call for.
A primary way academia sells "impact" of research is through moral outrage. Since academic impact, ought in most cases, be relatively fringe and internal to academic priorities -- the demand from society/government to contrive some means to assess its value has lead to an explosion of "morality washing" connecting some topic of investigation to some assumed moral value society is supposed to have.
Of course, academia then engineers those very moral values in order to pre-sell this moral impact. And since the academy has been constructed as the ethical handmaiden of liberalism -- inventing its political and ethical legitimacy, training its elite -- the language of its moral outrage and impact is that of contemporary liberalism.
It initially got an eye roll our of me, but it looks like the term that's been thrown around increasingly, and not entirely without cause. If the patterns, parallels, and impacts are close enough to make the comparison valid then it might be a more reasonable term than I expected. Colonialism doesn't necessarily require forced intervention or conquest. There are several definitions, but one would be the domination/exploitation of a people to serve a foreign power. By driving down wages, data harvesting through surveillance, and stealing natural resources tech companies are just as capable of exploiting and plundering as governments have been.
This is one of the most plain and readable sites I've come across in years. No cookie pop-up, no scroll highjacking, no unnecessary images or animations, it's just about the text. Bot account?
I also appreciate a minimalistic design, but it's universally agreed that limiting text to certain length improve readability. Yes, I can turn on firefox reader mode to fix it - and it will work well since the site itself is very simple. I can only assume that is the site-owner stance? But that's an extra click and I'm quite sure it would work well if the page itself did the minimal of centering and limiting the line length. (for those that prefer to read with read-mode like systems)
My problem is the opposite and there's no reader mode that turns off site design with about 8 words a line. Usually I have to delve into the markup to disable the right style.
"Universal acceptance" seems remarkably citation-free. AI cites back to Baymard which doesn't provide any actual published research article indicating the results.
> there's no reader mode that turns off site design with about 8 words a line
Firefox's reader mode allow you to set the line length. If the reader-mode is able to understand the page it should be able to increase the length as well?
> "Universal acceptance"
Looking into it bit more I concede there's no real research consensus for optimal range in the 50-100 character range. I could not find research for the 180 char length this site render on my laptop screen at reasonable font size.
(Research indicate that bigger line spacing is beneficial for long lines though.)
Even HN sucks so bad, I created my own CSS to use with Stylus plugin.
I don't want to spend even tiniest amount of time for CSS or spend few cents with AI for it either.
This is similar to badly designed sites make you click more than once to get a job done while once click is enough. (as It'd force me to style around his crappy site)
Harness changes dynamically depending on your LLM intelligence.
The smarter LLMs get, you apply less, as LLM takes care of pre-existing harnesses.
This is a shitty, unreliable, and unmaintainable way of using harness because the harness is built around for the sake of getting good benchmark scores (someone mentioned overfitting in comments, so that)
I've consistently heard the opposite from Chinese programmers. Maybe the performance is better in some tasks or maybe the sample size of San Francisco is just skewed.
As an example, Linux distros say, Ubuntu got its project "names" as well as SEMVERs. But people rarely use project names but uses versions.
You tell me, I use "Jammy Jellyfish". I will be like WTF dood. You tell me 22.04 LT (which is one I use), oh yeah, that's a good one.
Same thing here. companies can call whatever SOTA whatever they want. But in the end people will refer to them as just Gemini 4 or Ultr/Pro/Lite however people like to use.
Just leave it to company's discretion. Don't enforce anything. People will figure out how to call it.
---
And wtf, a peaseant?
I use your so-stupidly-called ultra/med/lite but in diff situations, and when I use lite that doesn't mean I am peasant, I am being sensible
reply