Right now, not much. The extension is fairly basic in that is just looks at the raw text + HTML and sends it to the LLM.
The benefit of this approach is it's very simple and easy, but the downside is it sends a lot of unnecessary tokens to the LLM. That drives up the cost, slows things down, and hurts accuracy.
I'm working on a few improvements now to improve this.
I remember there was something called readability for chrome which is just what browsers have incorporated as reader view. And mozilla even had a stand-alone version of it (1). Might be of interest to you.
Firebase can save you a lot of time at the beginning of your project, but it have so many issues once you start to scale even just a bit, it's such a pain to work with on a real project.(safety issues, bugs, all kind of stupid limitations, your bill can go up extremely easily, it has so many shortcomings)
I'd recommend using some boilerplate from github in your favorite stack even if it might be a little bit longer to build a product with it.
Curious mind here: I have few projects running on Firebase. Haven't had any issues so far. What type of safety issues/bugs and limitations are you referring to?
They didn't test that claim at all though. Vision isn't some sort of 1D sliding scale with every vision condition lying along one axis.
First of all myopia isn't 'seeing fine details as blurry' - it's nearsightedness - and whatever else this post tested it definitely didn't test depth perception.
And second - inability to see fine details is a distinct/different thing from not being able to count intersections and the other things tested here. That hypothesis, if valid, would imply that improving the resolution of the image that the model can process would improve its performance on these tasks even if reasoning abilities were the same. That - does not make sense. Plenty of the details in these images that these models are tripping up on are perfectly distinguishable at low resolutions. Counting rows and columns of blank grids is not going to improve with more resolution.
I mean, I'd argue that the phrasing of the hypothesis ("At best, like that of a person with myopia") doesn't make sense at all. I don't think a person with myopia would have any trouble with these tasks if you zoomed into the relevant area, or held the image close. I have a very strong feeling that these models would continue to suffer on these tasks if you zoomed in. Nearsighted != unable to count squares.
It seems to me they've brought up myopia only to make it more approachable to people how blurry something is, implying they believe models work with a blurry image just like a nearsighted person sees blurry images at a distance.
While myopia is common, it's not the best choice of analogy and "blurry vision" is probably clear enough.
Still, I'd only see it as a bad choice of analogy — I can't imagine anyone mistaking optical focus problems for static image processing problems — so in the usual HN recommendation, I'd treat their example in the most favourable sense.
There are multiple projects built to reverse engineer their API to avoid paying the API rates(it still makes economical sense to buy a subscription for this), it was obvious that they would have to increase their bot protections at some point.
Regular captchas are easily solvable by multimodal LLMs, we're reaching a point where what's hard for software to solve is also hard for humans.
At some point they'll probably have to charge by usage instead of a flat subscription.
It was rate limited since the start, the bots are respecting the rate limits, that does not mean they stop being a burden, they just create more of them.
This is the biggest place where all kinds of biases slip in, including ageism. Culture is tied up in all of the protected classes, and any time that you hear "culture fit" used as a justification for turning someone down alarm bells should be going off.
The legitimate uses of "culture fit" as a filter should be itemized rather than lumped together: "he doesn't deal well with ambiguity", "she doesn't like frequent interruptions", whatever. Just talking about "culture fit" in the abstract is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
> New grads perform better at leetcode than him(not saying that's a good metric, but that's not ageism)
It often can be, as:
1. Younger folks have more recently done their degree and algorithms stuff
2. There tends to be more free time to grind leetcode at a younger age (family, responsibilities, lower energy can hamstring an older person here)
Ymmv, but I wouldn't say LC is neutral in this regard.
If your goal is to work for people that don't give a crap about you and don't respect you then yes. If you want to work people that actually believe you're more than a cell in spreadsheet then no, or at least not for the reason you mentioned.
Also I think that in a lot of cases it's more "we can't afford to pay a guy with 20 YoE" than ageism, maybe you're punching below your weight.
Recently I noticed that I get more answers for jobs that seems too hard for me than too easy.
2. is a bias we should avoid, going up from senior level is a choice, not a requirement or expectation. There are engineers who aren't attracted by the work at staff/principal level and it doesn't mean anything on their technical abilities to perform as an experienced senior.
This up-or-out worldview is not helpful, by definition there won't be enough spots in most companies for seniors to progress to staff, even less to principal, the funnel gets quite restricted there.
It's a complex issue. When so many "skilled workers" move to your neighborhood that your rent doubles and that you can't afford to do grocery shopping in your neighborhood, it makes sense to be angry.
The US top 1% are number 1, the US bottom 10% have it worse than most or even almost all people from western Europe.
You are correct that most of Western Europe is ahead at the first decile, but you are incorrect to imply that it’s at the top 1% that the advantage goes away. In fact, the US meets the richest EU countries at the 50th percentile (meaning the median person is equally better off) and at the 90th percentile, you are much much better off in the US - it’s not comparable. The fact is, for everyone middle class (not by a local definition of middle class - literally middle) or above, the US will have you significantly better off. https://www.ft.com/content/ef265420-45e8-497b-b308-c951baa68...
And it's hard to get this data for Europe but looking at the "Median" column for this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_distribution_in_Europe it looks like the US middle class would slot into fourth place, just below Denmark which is at 165k, and far ahead of say, Germany, which is at 65k.
Through the argument here is more about living standards then how "well of" someone is from a materialistic POV.
Like one thing I realized is that it seems that you need to earn way more in the US to have a similar level of living quality/standard compared to the EU. As far as I can tell I probably would need to earn ~50% more to have the same quality of live level in the US compared to where I live now. Through it probably depends a lot on where you are in the US/EU.
Isn't the USA middle class shrinking though? We're quickly bifurcating into a "really better off" group and a "really worse off" group, with little in the middle.
Supply. The answer is and has always been to build more housing. NIMBYs around the world are the primary force stopping that from happening, that is why there are housing crises everywhere in the world. Contrast that with somewhere like Singapore where government housing is pretty good and plentiful in supply, they do not have such issues.
> Supply. The answer is and has always been to build more housing.
IMHO not really
The supply of affordable housing in the place where it's needed often can not be increased due to physical limitations and building luxury flats being more profitable. And the "demand" is often not driven by people living there, but investment stuff.
I.e. if we purely look at "supply of housing" (ignoring price) and "demand of housing" (to live in) there isn't a problem at all in most cases.
Through I agree with NIMBY making it worse, especially given that it's often not even their backyard. But the neighborhood of properties/land bought as investments and them blocking things for investment reasons.
Through the main reason is IMHO still housing being used roughly "like stocks".
that would only happen if the demand is based on people who want to move there
but if it is based on interest/dynamics more similar to stock markets like we currently have then there isn't a physical limit on (artificial) demand as such local housing gets bought up first (to potentially be upgraded to luxury flats) and then they still build more luxury flats
It's been statistically shown that any type of housing reduces market pressures simply because it is more supply in the market and over time that makes a difference.
Here, the county owns some land that it is going to put 100 houses on. They are going to put houses that cost 3x more than the locals can afford. Why? More money from property tax, and to hell with the average person.
The knock on effect is that regular houses will become more expensive, and in 10 years, only the top 10% of earners will be able to live here.
The downstream issues are not related to immigration, otherwise house prices would have fallen in Lisbon.
Look at examples such as Singapore, Dubai and many others that adopted an entrepreneurial attitude and figured out the infrastructure to support that growth.
When will they blame when the immigrants don’t come but the problems remain?
Yes, Dubai figured their infrastructure so well, their airport was closed for days when it rained.
Singapure is a dictatorship fuled by Chinese money, should a NATO country be supported by them? Will the US invade if we sold them the abandoned American base in the Azores?
more relevant is if your country can capitalize on the workers
like if a lot of skilled workers move over but
- they (mostly/majorly) don't settle, just stay for a few years
- they don't create companies in your country
- they don't work for companies in your country
- the companies they work with might directly compete with your local companies and now with having local representatives can do so better
Then if the tax breaks are worth it is solely a question of taxes they pay + money they spent vs. implicit cost of disruption they cause. Which might not be always worth it.
On the other hand the US doesn't focus on attracting digital nomads, they focus on their biggest/best companies attracting intelligence for themself. Which has a high chance of profiting the US especially given that they also tend to attract young talent which then build their business network in the US making it quite likely that they if they found a company they do so in the US.
> the US bottom 10% have it worse than most or even almost all people from western Europe
America’s bottom 10% are absolutely comparable to Europe’s bottom 10% when one considers actual access to services and material standards of living. (I’m assuming you mean EU’s, not Europe’s, because as terrible as being homeless in America may be, it sure beats being bombed.)
> benefits you get in western Europe are 10x better than what you get anywhere in the USA
Benefits you’re entitled to. France, for instance, has put a lot of services behind an internet portal. Add to that the stigma of utilising them in many villages and you get low utilisation rates.
I would imagine the poor in Europe are a bit better off. (If we limit ourselves to the coastal states, the answer may be surprising.)
I live in a plain Portuguese neighborhood of Porto. There are virtually no foreigners. At least I never see any when walking around or going to a grocery store. I maybe see one a day out of 100s of Portuguese people.
Yet my local Portuguese landlord keeps jacking my rent every year by a huge margin way exceeding the government norms.
Who forces them to do that?
They don’t even live in the city. They live outside in the Douro valley.
It’s just pure greed.
It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. They see average values went up and they adjust accordingly.
And why did the values all of a sudden go up on my neighbourhood with no foreigners?
Why would you compare bottom US to only Western Europe? Also, do you have a source on your claim? I’m skeptical that the US bottom 10% have it worse than “most or even almost all people from Western Europe”
I don't have the exact metrics, but free healthcare, free education, and enough benefits to not be homeless and hungry seems like more than what poor Americans get.
America has lots of programs that assist poor and/or disabled people: SNAP, Unemployment, VA, SSI, SSDI, TANF, Section 8, Childcare Assistance etc. Some people don’t want to bother to apply/jump through hoops to get them but they exist.
