The people who cook for them, the people who clean for them, the ones who take care of their kids, the one who sell them stuff or serve them in restaurants...

They have separate kitchens for the prep, the cleaners work while they’re out on the yacht, they have people to do the buying, and the restaurants they visit have very well trained staff who stay out of the way.

All that is irrelevant to the point: they still need to have those poor people around them, trust them, and even trust their security to them.

And this is how every societal hierarchy is structured.

So easy to control that most rich people throughout history were murdered by their guards and close helper circle.

The vast majority of rich people don't get murdered.

Those that do, yes, usually get murdered by those in position to do that (i.e. those that have physical access to them). That's neither interesting nor relevant though.

"Most rich people that were murdered" is a different statement from "most rich people"

Epstein had a staff of 70 on that island kept mum

Also, they're not building the house or the jet, they're not growing the food, ... people close enough can be chosen for willingness to be sycophants and happiness to be servants. Unless you're feeding yourself from your own farm, or manufacturing your own electronics, there are limits to even a billionaires ability to control personnel.

nah, if slave owners like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington could reorient their entire lives around not seeing the "ick" of chattel slavery I think modern billionaires can do the same thing even easier now if they wanted.

Exactly, their issue was about a drop in visits to their documentation site where they promote their paid products. If they were making money from usage, their business could really thrive with LLMs recommending Tailwind by default

That's not what Adam said. He said it was a traffic issue.

One of the important keys in learning is engagement. If you frustrate the student preventing them from progressing at their own rhythm they will disengage, losing interest in what you are teaching.

Both things can be true though, right?

Maybe it just needs to reset faster or maybe start more gradually so you can build up muscle memory of intervals.

The reasoning option was good for this. It used to tell you the motivations of the LLM to say what it said: "the user is expressing concern about X topic, I have to address this with compassion..."

I usually ask it to challenge its last response when it acts too agreeable.

Is it because of chat memory? ChatGPT has never acted like that for me.

That version of it was a real dick sucker. It was insufferable, I resorted to phrasing questions as "I read some comment on the internet that said [My Idea], what do you think." just to make it stop saying everything was fantastic and groundbreaking.

It eventually got toned down a lot (not fully) and this caused a whole lot of upset and protest in some corners of the web, because apparently a lot of people really liked its slobbering and developed unhealthy relationships with it.

ChatGPT was never overly sycophantic to you? I find that very hard to believe.

Legacy code, files with thousands of lines, lack of separation of concern... When I feed that to an LLM it says something like:

function bar() { // Add the rest of your code here }

And barely manages to grasp what's going on.

The choice of an individual to skip an advertisement has minimal impact on the content creator or the platform. This person isn't accountable for the decisions of others regarding whether they watch the ad or not. Ultimately, their actions only affect themselves and do not influence anyone involved in the advertisement process.

Generally accepted by whom? There are many countries that only consider distribution illegal so I don't think it's generally accepted at all.

I'd say generally accepted by the majority of English speaking/western society? If someone said they were going to "pirate a movie" there's next to zero chance they are referring to the distribution side of that endeavor.

I feel like OP isn't asserting anything even remotely controversial in that definition lol

Um... no? Maybe that's true for English speakers (I'm not a native speaker, so I won't make assumptions), but thinking that Western society views it that way is a big stretch, especially with streaming sites. While some might admit to watching something on a pirate site, many people don't refer to it as piracy when they're using a streaming service.

Who is claiming that using a streaming site is piracy? No one is saying that lol

What the guy was saying is that circumventing payment to watch a movie = pirating, and it seems like you're saying that's not the case. It seems you're saying that people saying "pirating" are referring circumventing payment and distributing, which is not at all what the majority of people mean by pirating.

Pirating != distribution for the vast majority of how people use that word - it means consuming the media without paying for it.

> Who is claiming that using a streaming site is piracy? No one is saying that lol

literally OP:

> "watch free movies online" and find a site streaming bad DVD rips

So "streaming service" (the term you used) implies something like Netflix or Hulu or something, which is a paid service and definitely not piracy. At least in the USA that's how that term is used.

I'm not actually sure what you're issue is at this point. In the US, if someone says they're going to "pirate a movie" they are assuredly not talking about how they are going to be the one distributing the movie, just consuming it - whether that's on a "streaming" site or just downloaded and watched locally.

It seems like your argument is that "piracy" is much more specific than how people actually use the word. SO it's a semantics thing, and that's really fucking stupid lol

Many people used to go to the bathroom during commercial breaks while watching a movie on TV. Was that considered piracy? Was it immoral?