We cant trust what we read. But last year's "Altman World Tour" where he met so many world leaders around the world felt a bit over the top, and maybe it got into his head
> This was about stopping a runaway train before it flew off a cliff with all of us on board. Believe me, the board and I gave him tons of chances to self-correct. But his ego was out of control.
> Don't let the media hype fool you. Sam wasn't some genius visionary. He was a glory-hungry narcissist cutting every corner in some deluded quest to be the next Musk.
That does align with Ilya’s tweet about ego being in the way of great achievements.
And it does align with Sam’s statements on Lex’s podcast about his disagreements with Musk. He compared himself to Elon’s SpaceX being bullied by Elon’s childhood heroes. But he didn’t seem sad about it - just combative. Elon’s response to the NASA astronauts distrusting his company’s work was “They should come visit and see what we’re doing”. Sam’s reaction was very different. Like, “If he says bad things about us, I can say bad things about him too. It’s not my style. But maybe I will, one day”. Same sentiment as he is showing now (“if I go off the board can come after me for the value of my shares”).
All of that does paint a picture where it really isn’t about doing something necessary for humanity and future generations, and more about being considered great. The odd thing is that this should get you fired, especially in SF, of all places.
Who is u/Anxious_Bandicoot126? Is there any reason to think this is actually a person at OpenAI and not some random idiot on the internet? They have no comment history except on this issue. Seems like BS.
Is this sarcasm? The burden is on the person with the supposed claim to show they are trustworthy and reputable. What you're saying is basically "coin shows heads 50% of the time, therefore it's 50% chance they're an insider".
Wow, all the comments and responses to that person's comments are a gold mine. Not saying anything should be taken as gospel, either from that poster or the people replying. But certainly a lot of food for thought.
The Jepsen tests were not completely centered around transactions. It also had to do with data loss when replicas go down and pure "last-write-wins" approach. For those wanting more info around this the original post is here:
Review the link below for a simple example of a Radial Gauge component. This is just the basic 'wrapping' of an existing UI component so more can be done:
The issues in the randyfay.com post are due to a misunderstanding when using git as a "centralized" repo like SVN. Git, by design, does not enforce a central repo even if you designate one logically. These issues can be completely avoided if you merge the right way:
Well, that confirms that the "obvious" workflow of "git pull" is dangerous. At least it explains all the spurious merges. Why on earth did it ship with this broken design? Why doesn't git pull do the right thing by default?
I believe you can flip a switch to turn on only allowing FF merges which should alleviate the situation. Certainly FF merges make a lot of things easier and "cleaner".
I guess maybe the reason git doesn't do this by default might be because the idea of rebasing early on (the "omg you're overwriting history in a RCS!!!!!") was a bit taboo and it's taken time for people to get used to the idea. Note that I'm just speculating about that, I did follow the git discussion early on and I know that people then (and still are to some degree) afraid of "rewriting history" (note that I quote that because I don't really see it that way).
You can still use the Google viewer functionality without having to log in (i.e. "anonymously"), if you toss the original URL into the right Google URL. I don't have that particular Google URL (prefix) noted on this machine.
P.S. Here's another way to get at it, and what look to be links to pages with further details.
