Well, I did a small research and I couldn't find any cases of the US government discriminating foreign business owners by passport. There are several cases in the EU, but the US looks clear so far. Hence my interest in that location.
I have often heard this story. To my ears, inexperienced in the tech industry, but experienced in others, it sounds absurd. If a modification improves performance even in the slightest perceptible way (of course it needs to be perceptible by the user), it is the job of the sales team to hype it up to the heavens.
To me, these stories sound like a ridiculous failure of the sales team or of the executive team to communicate the change to the sales team.
If this was a self-funded startup where performance directly translates to less of an impact on the hip pocket of the founder, then yes, absolutely, you'll traction with even the smallest improvement.
Similarly, I love watching CppCon talks by Andrei Alexandrescu where he describes a 1-2% improvement across a huge fleet of servers that probably got him a nice bonus and/or a promotion. That's because he directly reduced the costs to the corporation itself, making his manager look good, or his manager's manager, or whatever.
Nobody gives the slightest f%&# about their customer's experience. They really don't.
I say this with confidence because I just looked up Andrei's video on YouTube and the page froze for a solid 30 seconds while it loaded 200 bytes of text and a few thumbnails.
Google doesn't care in the slightest what my experience is.
Nobody does!
That's because in any larger organisation, only your superior's opinion matters. Customers are not superiors.
Yes, too many people here do not understand the distance between the problems the article is discussing (and LLMs have solved) and the big problems in math and CS.
What an utter piece of shit comment. I have had friends (research mathematicians) who were harassed at the border and you have the temerity to do the "cite your sources" shitcrap for "data" which is available with a single click of the mouse -- as the very gracious sibling comment showed, doing your work for you.
The implication being what? "What about Iran" as if I don't think killing schoolchildren is terrible and shouldn't happen?
You missed the entire point of my comment: to us it's a tragedy. To them it's a strategy. That's why we're bombing them in the first place. They are commiting genocide.
I think true competence of this subject matter is having the ability to comprehend that "it was an accident" or "they started it" score zero points. Simple minds wail for simple framings of deeply complicated situations, and Americans chose to elect simple minds. I think the U.S. has grappled for a long time with the growing chorus of simple mindedness, volunteering itself for wars that ultimately serve no outcome other than further destabilization. The tragedy of simple minds is their being unable to learn from these mistakes, let alone identify them as mistakes.
To put more simply: it doesn't matter what logic or reasoning there is. There are real, tangible consequences to killing 150 children with a cruise missile. The tragedy will be when simple minds understand those consequences as little more than, "it's because they're subhuman terrorists who hate America."
reply