> LLMs are trained on wrong autogenerated documentation: a downward spiral for hallucinations! (Maybe this one could then force users go look for the official docs? But not sure at this point…)
I wonder what incentives for adherence to the use of this meta-tag might exist? For example, imagine I send you my digital resume and it has an AI-generated footer tag on display? Maybe a bad example- I like the idea of this in general, but my mind wanders to the fact that large entities completely ignored the wishes of robots.txt when collecting the internet's text for their training corpuses
Large entities aside, I would use this to mark my own generated content. Would be even more helpful if you could get the LLM to recognise it which would allow you to prevent ouroboros situations.
Also, no one is reading your resume anymore and big corps cannot be trusted with any rule as half of them think the next-word-machine is going to create God.
Probably try changing company, not the role?
It depends, per my experience being TL is not harder than being a dev, probably CTO is more loaded, just try a smaller company then, so you have less people/tasks under your management.
Is the source legit?
I found only Ukrainian sources claiming Uralvagonzavod ceasing production, no Russian sources. It also has military and civil branches, even if some civil production stopped it does not mean military branch is affected.
I couldn't find anyone to back up this story except for this Facebook post which appears to be the original source. In it it does not mention lack of computer chips but simply "foreign-made components"
I would be very surprised if their military operated with a just-in-time inventory instead of a stockpile system for crucial components. But several surprising things have happened recently.
> Ukrainian forces have been able to take out Russian tanks using the Javelin anti-tank missile system being supplied by the U.S., and a lighter, more easily transportable missile supplied by Great Britain.
That is not true. Vast majority of tanks have been destroyed by artillery (2nd is stugna-p). You can see on the videos publish by UA. They are burning with twisted parts. Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that.
What is more, they must have a stockpile of chips in case of war (Soviet Union was the only country with aluminum cutlery - side effect of stockpiling resources for potential wars). China and other countries would give them chips quietly.
>> Ukrainian forces have been able to take out Russian tanks using the Javelin anti-tank missile system being supplied by the U.S., and a lighter, more easily transportable missile supplied by Great Britain.
> That is not true. Vast majority of tanks have been destroyed by artillery (2nd is stugna-p). You can see on the videos publish by UA. They are burning with twisted parts. Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that.
You're not responding to what you're quoting. It didn't make any mention of what proportion of tanks were destroyed by what weapon. The statement would only be not true if the Ukrainians have not been able to take out any tanks with the Western missiles.
> 2nd is stugna-p
Given that's an indigenous Ukrainian weapons system, I wonder if they're still capable of manufacturing/resupplying their forces with them (i.e. is the factory in a captured/threatened area and unable to be relocated).
> Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that.
Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java.
> You're not responding to what you're quoting. It didn't make any mention of what proportion of tanks were destroyed by what weapon. The statement would only be not true if the Ukrainians have not been able to take out any tanks with the Western missiles.
To be precise UA may take out some tanks with Javelins, but I'd guess it's very tiny minority of tanks. It's a really bad investment. You need 3-7 shots for a tank (40%-30% miss, active and passive protections, $100k for a single shot). The best way to take out a tank is to cut the fuel and ammunition supply and this is what UA does.
If someone makes statements like it's an indication that his source are propaganda videos. We don't have a single video from the frontline.
> Given that's an indigenous Ukrainian weapons system, I wonder if they're still capable of manufacturing/resupplying their forces with them (i.e. is the factory in a captured/threatened area and unable to be relocated).
I can't find the source but they have 10x stugna-p's comparing to Javelins. (can't find the source. They've been producing it for 10+ years and stockpiling for 8)
> Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java.
Military analyst that doesn't specialise in ATGMs pointed out to me that almost all videos we see shows the damage from the artillery. Maybe it's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know what for loop is. I'm not sure.
> To be precise UA may take out some tanks with Javelins, but I'd guess it's very tiny minority of tanks. It's a really bad investment. You need 3-7 shots for a tank (40%-30% miss, active and passive protections, $100k for a single shot). The best way to take out a tank is to cut the fuel and ammunition supply and this is what UA does.
Do you have a source for that?
>>> Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that.
>> Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java.
> Maybe it's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know what for loop is. I'm not sure.
No, I'd say it's more like an embedded C programmer not being able to recognize symptom of the Java garbage collector going awry. Being able diagnose from a photograph what kind of weapon was used to destroy a tank seems like an extremely specialized kind of military experience.
Article here "280 Russian tanks destroyed with US missiles", dated 4th March https://www.observerbd.com/details.php?id=355843 and that they have a 93% kill rate. That must be a good proportion of those destroyed at that point.
> they must have a stockpile of chips in case of war
They would also prepare enough fuel and rations for the front in case of a war, but we have seen that they did not. Maybe they thought it was just an exercise.
I'd bet my money on corruption. They told the soldiers it would be a fast thing like an exercise. In that case I can burn more fuel to keep me warm, sell 1/5 to a local farmer. Old food rations? They are fine for a few more years. I can pocket the money.
Not exactly so, dot in address is just ignored by gmail, so “myemail.youtube“ is equivalent to “myemailyoutube“, not to “myemail“. Plus sign works as you described.
Those 600 pages are not so well-formalised to be processed by the computer. If they were, that could be 6000 or more pages.
Even a simple statement is a lot more verbose in formal form.
Also, this is hard algorithmically, even SAT problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem is NP-complete, verifying a generic proof is a lot harder.
I don't think the articles premise is that Google axed all content older then 5 years or so. But that it gradually discards old unique content.
Which goes against the original mission of Google to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible".
A "bug" could be an option, but I don't expect that to be the reason. It's too easy to find examples of forgotten content. And I don't think a bug of that magnitude in Googles core business would go unnoticed.
Search. They still form a major part of their business. Through direct ad revenues but also to redirect traffic to other Google products (e.g. Maps, Youtube).
Thank you :)
In my university our GPA scale is inverted. The best you can achieve is 0.7 which corresponds to an A+ and the worst is 5.0 which is an F.
The HR (Human Resources) people at American companies are used to the American system of measuring Grades -- usually on the 4.0 scale (0.0 = F, 3.0 = B, 4.0 = A). Just convert your GPA to the 4.0 scale and write that on your resume. Or just write down "A+" average.
You want to make it as clear as possible that you are a strong applicant. Don't make the HR people think too hard about converting your GPA. They'll just get confused.
Wouldn't it be safer if he used some sort of percentile system? Something like 5%-10% for the GPA-equivalent exam in Egypt? (with the actual score afterwards in case they want to check).
I automatically associate the term 'GPA' with the American-style 4-point scale. I'm not aware that GPA is often used in other contexts. If this is understood on these terms, it will be an instant rejection.
There's also further confusion with 70% vs 86%.
Perhaps it would help to use the appropriate German term?
It's curious that the USA has effectively standardized on a 4 point GPA scale, yet Australia is still a complete catastrophe of marks. The universities in my city use a 7 point scale with 4 being a pass and 7 being 100%, meanwhile the one 100km south will use an American scale.
I actually don't know whether it would be more appropriate when conveying my marks to those in other countries to convert, or to just explain the scale.
To hazard a guess, 70% is the maximum grade (which I've been told isn't that good in US standards, so just saying "I've got 86%" - which is a very good grade, might get looked at the wrong way by a US company.
On this, I think, we should have some kind of AI-generated meta-tag, like this: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/9479