There is no legitimate reason to make an illegal move in chess though? There are reasons why a good doctor might intentionally explain things imprecisely to a patient.
> There is no legitimate reason to make an illegal move in chess though?
If you make an illegal move and the opponent doesn't notice it, you gain a significant advantage. LLMs just have David Sirlin's "Playing to Win" as part of their training data.
You raise an interesting point. If the filtered out illegal moves were disadvantageous, it could be that if the model had been allowed to make any moves it wanted it would have played to a much worse level than it did.
I've never heard of a surgeon going to jail over a genuine mistake even if it did kill someone. I'm also not sure what that would accomplish - take away their license to practice medicine sure, but they're not a threat to society more broadly.
I don't think it's purely an optics thing. College is a community not just school. Do you want all your social groups, living area, etc. to be 75+% male as a college student?
Given the option as an 18-yo male I’d probably opt for 5% male, but that’s strictly a matter of personal preference, and not a basis for admissions.
I endured 75+% male and didn’t particularly enjoy it, but that’s not why I attended my similarly-sized engineering college. I went for the education and rigor.
Caltech is and has always been about hardcore study. It’s not a cotillion. At least it didn’t used to be.
You don't need to sacrifice the rigor to have a more balanced community, at least not at the total size Caltech is. There's a large component of college admissions these days that is somewhat arbitrary. High school resumes (at least the type that applies to these schools) have become absolutely cracked. Like it used to mean something to have a research internship, now it's weird not to.
I think you do need to sacrifice some rigor to reach a level of perfect balance, or at least sacrifice the appearance of rigor. So let's agree to differ on that one.
I think we would agree about most aspects of college admissions being flawed.
Flawed is probably technically correct. But you're basically optimizing for a good blend of student body and I think admission committees don't get things "right" but who knows what that even means? They probably mostly do well enough given there are lots of opinions on what the targets should be.
It's pretty clear to me that you don't want to just admit the highest SAT scores, the best athletes, or the best musicians (unless maybe you're Juilliard).
Whether you like it or not, schools are communities. They have a shared identity and set of experiences that people outside the school don't have. Whether this should be the case or not is a separate matter, but it is the reality of today (and for pretty much all schools since they first started).
Starting anything with “whether you like it or not” is a sure sign you’re not arguing to learn or teach but arguing to win (win what? the internet?)
Schools are not communities, they have communities within them, but they are more than just communities.
Your high school homecoming court also has a shared identity and a set of experiences that people outside the court don’t have. How is either important?
A lot of people paid $75 to become one of those data points, and the majority of them didn’t pick Caltech because of the social opportunities (because Caltech is not anywhere near the top of that list unless you’re talking social opportunities strictly for people north of 180 I.Q.).
In Caltech we have an exclusive and highly desirable learning institution with a finite and insufficient number of seats. Rigor or optics, you can’t have both. If you’re choosing optics, own it and don’t be ashamed of it.
Nah, sorry you had a shit college experience, but college is the place I made most of my close, lifelong friends. And had an awesome time. While also learning, they're not mutually exclusive. It's a shared experience you can't replicate just going to the bar.
It's not like they're taking women that can't hack the coursework. They could replace the entire incoming class with select people amongst the rejected and the class would still be successful. College admissions is partly a crap shoot. If they tilt the crap shoot part in a way that makes the community better, who cares?
In the case of a large university in smaller/to medium towns, there frequently won't be much of a change in ratio unless you're really willing to travel. It's the same community feeding all the places within walking distance or a short drive.
Relatedly, a selective school means that the peers are likely to be similar. Those connections can last a life time, and socialization can greatly broaden your knowledge base and lead to a potentially more interesting skill set and/or a more complex trade.
Disney uses an integrated account system now, if you sign up in order to buy park tickets or use the Disney world app you are probably clicking through a similar agreement anyway. And if you were never going to visit Disney in the first place I'm not sure what other control Disney has over you from these terms.
To be clear I don't agree with this motion to dismiss, I just feel that's hyperbolic. If Disney were to win they only "have you over the barrel" as it pertains to your use of Disney products. Which if you're only using Disney+/going to the movies I'm not sure how severe of a dispute you can have against them. And if you're going to the parks it would be unavoidable regardless of subscribing to D+. Though I'm guessing this won't be upheld.
They own a lot. They have 20 property holding companies, and only a few are obviously owned by Disney, not sure if that also carries to the businesses on all of those properties. It is possible someone could be on Disney owned property, and thus caught under the Disney+ agreement, without knowing it.
I also suspect it won’t be upheld, with Disney’s ever growing footprint, some of these mega companies become harder and harder to ignore.
Fair enough, I knew they owned a lot of entertainment/media related companies but didn't realize they owned additional properties that weren't explicitly advertised as such.
Though in the case of Disney Springs they actually don't own the restaurant, just the property, so I'm not sure what liability they have regardless of this motion. If Disney technically owns the property but independent operators are involved, Disney isn't really the right party to bring a suit against anyway (though obviously they are large and people tend to file broad lawsuits).
Sure that overrides the disclaimer for the restaurant, and I'm inclined to agree with you there because every restaurant has some disclaimer like this that if enforced would make any "allergen-free" claims worthless everywhere.
But that would still make Disney less liable, because the in person conversation with staff/chef has nothing to do with Disney here.
Although it is interesting that the restaurants operated by others still use the "cast member" language. I do think Disney tries to have a bit of an illusion that everything on property including Disney springs is them. I still wouldn't consider it enough legally here but there is at least an argument about assumption of oversight.
This defense is absurd, but also there are no tickets for the mall and Disney doesn't own most of the stores/restaurants in the mall. The restaurant in question is a tenant and the company that owns it is also being sued.
No, though maybe there is a reasonable assumption they enforce more oversight on tenants than a typical mall would. They do publish the restaurant menu on their website (including allergen info) and you can make reservations through their app. But the restaurant is ultimately a tenant operated by someone else in Disney's free to enter outdoor shopping mall. The original source of the incorrect info was definitely the restaurant, and the restaurant is also the one that doubled down on the incorrect info when the woman asked IRL. The main reason to sue Disney here is they're much richer than a Florida Irish pub chain.
Also Samsung has been innovating with hardware. I'm not the hugest fan of their flavor of Android but I absolutely love my flip phone and would not consider switching back to iOS or pure Android unless Apple or Google were to make a flip.
Samsung + Universal Android Debloater rocks. You get great hardware and you can remove as much or as little of the Samsung\Google nonsense as you like.
Obviously most scientists are not going to be interested in null results from adjacent subfields, but when it comes to specific questions of interest it is absolutely useful to know what has been tried before and how it was done/what was observed. I know a lab that had documentation not only on their own historical null results but also various anecdotes from colleagues' labs about specific papers that were difficult to replicate, reagents that were often problematic, etc.
That is a non-ideal way for the scientific community at large to maintain such info. Trying to go through traditional peer review process is probably also non-ideal for this type of work though, for reasons you cited. We need to be willing to look at publication as something more broadly defined in order to incentivize the creation of and contribution to that sort of knowledge base. It shouldn't be implemented as a normal journal just meant for null results - there's really no need for this sort of thing to be peer reviewed specifically at the prepub stage. But it should still count as a meaningful type of scientific contribution.
It's meant for kids so parents would be the ones paying. Obviously they're trying to profit and it does seem a bit overpriced (though there are extra logistical costs for anything to be medically approved, so it's not comparable to a normal game). But I highly doubt there was any intent to take advantage of people here.
