I wanted to learn more and found this article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/29/damon-baehrel-the-most-exclusive-restaurant-in-america

Sounds like the ten year wait list might be made up and who knows where he gets his meats, but the whole thing just sounds fascinating. From his website, the current price is $550 USD a head, though it’s subject to change several times per week.

He sounds like one of those guys that has a whole bunch of little projects going on at any time and over the years accumulated enough results from those to host some volume of dinner parties. And possibly exaggerates or lies about some of them (though hard to say if he treats his cooking similarly to how he treats his legend/myth).

Though I wouldn’t suggest bringing up open source software around him. Unless it’s to bitch about people doing things for free when you want to charge lots of money for it.

Yeah, but how was that food?

I just tried a fine dining restaurant for the first time this past weekend.

I was just curious after watching a bunch of cooking competitions on Netflix about how good that kind of food could be so decided to find a Michelin star restaurant and give it a try.

While the portions were small, the food was on another level. Even the “worst” of it was only that because it wasn’t amazing, but still really good.

The food was so good that when I got home and snacked that night, it was hard to enjoy any of my usual favorite snacks because it all felt so basic after that.

It was fancy in other regards, too. Like when my buddy went to the bathroom, someone came over and folded his cloth napkin rather than leave it bunched up on the table.

Plus, even though the portions were tiny and we joked about whether we’d need to stop for fast-food afterwards, by the end of the 9 or so courses, I felt completely satisfied. Even the snacking I mentioned was more due to the munchies than actual hunger.

It was expensive though. Two taster menu plus two drinks each came to about 500 CAD plus tip. And it was one of the cheaper options. There was a two Michelin star sushi place that advertised seats starting at 800 and I’m not even sure that includes any food, though I think it gets the “chef cooks what he wants” menu, which tbf would probably be way better than what I’d want anyways.

This place only needed to be booked like a month in advance, so the place you’re talking about sounds like it’s on another level itself. Though I’m curious how much that other level translates to better food.

I’ve been there, it’s not even a good park if you ignore the animal cruelty, and I thought this as a kid.

I think that, due to the nature of chaos and the butterfly effect, any time travel at all would change the future. Unless it was just closing a time loop that was already present in the current past (which would mean any attempt to alter history would fail because that attempt is already a part of history), or if it’s possible to create new branches in time.

So these rules are either unnecessary because any time travel automatically causes changes that, it’s not possible to change the past from the past, or it’s not possible to go back to our past, thus nothing you do will affect our present.

We don’t control what Google puts on their search page. Ideally, yeah, they wouldn’t be pushing their LLM out to where it’s the first thing to respond to people who don’t understand that it isn’t reliable. But we live in a reality where they did put it on top of their search page and where they likely don’t even care what we think of that. Their interests and everyone else’s don’t necessarily align.

That comment was advice for people who read it and haven’t yet realized how unreliable it is and has nothing to do with the average person. I’m still confused as to why you have such an issue with it being said at all. Based on what you’ve been saying, I think you’d agree that Google is being either negligent or malicious by doing so. So saying they shouldn’t be trusted seems like common sense, but your first comment acts like it’s just being mean to anyone who has trusted it or something?

Ok, I agree that Google isn’t a good guy in this situation, but that doesn’t mean advice to not just trust what Google says is invalid. It also doesn’t absolve Google of their accidental or deliberate inaccuracies.

It was just a “In case you didn’t know, don’t just trust Google even though they’ve worked so hard at building a reputation of being trustworthy and even seemed pretty trustworthy in the past. Get a phone number from the company’s website.”

And then I’ll add on: regardless of where you got the phone number from, be skeptical if someone asks you for your banking information or other personal information that isn’t usually involved in such a service. Not because you’ll be the bad guy if you do get scammed, but to avoid going through it because it’s at least going to be a pain in the ass to deal with, if not a financially horrible situation to go through if you are unable to get it reversed.

Why not both? Plus, not just trusting LLMs is something any of us can decide to do on our own.

I don’t see any blaming of anyone in the original comment you replied to but just general advice to avoid falling for a scam like this. There isn’t even a victim in this case because the asking for banking info tipped them off if I’m understanding the OP correctly.

So I’m confused about what specifically you are objecting to in the original comment and if it is the general idea that you shouldn’t blindly trust results given by Google’s LLM, which isn’t known for its reliability.

I’m skeptical that there exists any leftist mainstream place that isn’t actually a right-wing place disguised as leftist.

I’m also skeptical that all of those loud but irrational voices are genuine. Especially given Russia’s MO for online trolling where they push both sides of any issue to extremes to sow division. Not to say that I believe everyone on the left is rational and reasonable. But why would the tone be so different between “mainstream” and “non-mainstream” left places if the position you’re talking about is as ubiquitous to the left as you claim it is?

Wait, are you advocating people blindly trust unreliable sources and then get angry at the unreliable source when it turns out to be unreliable rather than learn from shit like this to avoid becoming a victim?

Probably just trying to keep their remaining navy out of Ukraine’s range.

Yeah, this current system looks pretty fucking captured to me.

Some things look like signs that things might not be that bad, like the Google ruling is a step in the right direction. But on the other hand, IMO it wasn’t enough of a step and there was a ruling against MS 20 years ago that looked really good until it was just dropped entirely (though apparently the experience did still affect Gates when he was embarrassed about having to explain his position and realizing that most people didn’t agree with it).

Today’s billionaires don’t seem to have that humility anymore, at least not the more prominent ones. Just like the right wing politicians. And all of it enabled by the billionaire-owned media.

IMO YouTube and social media are both things that would be better as public services than for profit ventures. The things they need to do to make money either make the product shitty (holy shit @ some of the things I’ve heard from people who don’t block ads) or are outright bad for society (misinformation and all).

I like it for more obscure things where the context is needed to filter out results because the words themselves get too many hits.

But I’ve also had issues with accuracy, like asking for help with syntax for an obscure scripting language application (think like lua where a specific context added an API and wanting information about that API).

It seemed like it knew what it was talking about, but turns out none of the syntax it gave were real argument names, they couldn’t be split up into seperate lines like it claimed, and the way scope worked was off. Though it was enough to get me to a decent place where correcting everything didn’t take very long.

Edit: I also like to use it to fact check comments before I post them. You can just copy paste the comment and ask it to comment on the accuracy to add a quick but basic peer review.

Wouldn’t surprise me if that neighbour has been in a few accidents, gotten a bunch of speeding tickets, and/or is a young male.

Also depends on what they are driving.

Does this one pretend to be gung ho Christian? And missed the whole origin story of the Jews?

And I wonder how she feels about slavery in the US.

I think you’re overfitting to the average here with your expectations. Especially basing that on the experience level of people who would sign up for help learning how to use Windows products. And even then, the ones learning about copy/paste for the first time will likely make more noise about it then those waiting to see if you’ll teach them something new or any that ended up in your training because their work made them or something.

While the majority might lack familiarity, the 40 - 80 age range includes tons of people that have been working with computers (windows or otherwise) since before Windows was even a thing, including many who worked on Windows and/or developed applications for it. Experience will range from not knowing what windows is, knowing it’s the OS but not knowing what an OS is, to understanding what goes on in the kernel at a high level of detail.

There’s a lot of people on Windows just because of inertia and Linux can handle a lot of the use cases. It makes perfect sense to me that someone, once they’ve seen that things aren’t so scary and different on the other side of the fence, would wonder out loud about why they thought their inertia was so strong.

Your skepticism is more baffling to me than that.

Probably by the very armies and security forces they hired to protect them from that in the first place, once they realize that the rest of society collapsing means there probably won’t be consequences for forcibly inheriting their employer’s estate.

Or maybe it will be whoever holds the keys to the safety system they built when they realised they’d be at the mercy of their security forces.

Just because it’s a desktop doesn’t mean it’s more powerful.