Was Google Translate millions of lines of hand-rolled code? The Transformer architecture was invented for Google Translate, before it was used to build "LLMs".
I don't know about millions of lines of code, but Google Translate existed WELL BEFORE transformer architectures and relied on more traditional statistical machine translation techniques. They later moved to a neural machine translation technique, and then only after that in ~2019/2020 swapped to transformers.
Honestly a lot of us who worked in the translation sector remember NMT as being a huge step up and in some language-pairs even surpassing DeepL at the time.
No, I am directly addressing the parent's implication that for things "we care about", small (central) government is somehow bad or a curious choice or hypocrisy.
I'd like to make a cleaner point, but the parent itself is very vague.
Republicans / Conservatives, whatever the terminology, generally have an aim of "small government"; minimal intervention. This is not a bad thing in and of itself.
I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy that they choose Big Government for specific topics because what they actually want, when they say Small Government, is minimal responsibility for what they consider trivial or politically inert or personally boring, and Big Government when it suits their agenda; when it will score political points or personally profit individuals making the decisions.
Specifically denying States the ability to pass laws seems... overtly paranoid. It shows their hand on how desperate they are about US success of AI. As if they know the bubble will inevitably pop and are legislating against the possibility of anyone creating something that might look like a pin, so as to delay the pop until, hopefully, after the next election.
No, that's fair enough, and probably the correct answer overall: Find the size that best fits the "thing".
Hypocrisy is invoked, however, when a party that rallies around "small government" as core to their ideology legislates in a "big government" fashion to such an extent that it is to explicitly prevent "small government" behaviour (ie. allowing states to make their own decisions).
What this does it totally and completely give their game away: They're betting the farm on AI (currently synonymous with US Big Tech).
Well he did retweet another tweet that kickstarted the convo, very possible he saw that tweet, said to himself "I have some of these to share!" and then proceeded to... do so.
How do you define insignificant? From 1950 to 2000 (50 years), the foreign born percentage of the UK doubled from 4% to 8%. In the 20 years after that, the percentage doubled again to 16%. In the five years since 2020, the percentage has increased another 4 points to ~20%.
Not only is 13 million people not "insignificant" in my book, but clearly the trend is accelerating.
Look back a few hundred years and you'll find that the country you grew up in, in Europe, was constantly in that situation. People moved a lot back then too. And the countries are today.. the countries. It'll be fine.
The last migration of equivalent magnitude was the Anglo-Saxons 1500 years ago... Most people did not move around much at all. An average person would be born and die in the same village, or the same region. A handful of people travelled a lot, generally merchants, sailors, and such, but they were a pretty tiny percentage of the population compared to the people engaged in subsistence agriculture.
The average person may well have lived all their lives in one village, but the minority who didn't has always been substantial, often very substantial.
Since the Anglo-Saxons, we've had numerous intense bursts of migration driven by the first and second Viking periods, the Normans, the Hundred Years War, Black Death, Border Wars, Plantations, Thirty Years War / Wars of the Three Kingdoms / the Huguenots, Plantations, Colonialism, Inclosure, Clearances, Industrial Revolution, Famine, New Colonialism, World Wars, and the Commonwealth.
Yes, the Brexit migration wave was particularly sharp, but the movements in the 1850s-60s were proportionately greater (albeit spread over a dozen years rather than just five).
It only looks like that because you're looking over a relatively short timeframe. Start looking over more than a generation and things will look different. I just have to check my father's ancestry research to see that - his notes includes a lot of extra information not directly related to my forefathers, and yes people moved. That a lot of people move in, historically, an instant, is something that doesn't happen always, but it has happened again and again over time. The net result is in any case that anyone country is, when you look back, always a product of its immigration. And it's still a country which you would attribute national culture to. The culture isn't frozen if you look over a large enough timeframe, and I for one am happy for that - my boring childhood town isn't that way anymore: boring.
I didn't say that 1500 years ago is a short timeframe. I'm saying that if you look at short timeframes like a decade or a generation or two it may look like there's not much migration going on. But stretch that a bit, and you'll see the changes. It's like a slow-moving river. Always moving, if you yourself move your viewpoint back a little.
Fair enough, that's not insignificant. As a German, I feel sorry that you feel the UK got flooded with my people, as they are one of the biggest part of the immigrants.
My understanding is, the "original flood" from India, just like the turkey workforce in Germany, was desperately needed back then, "flooding a dry land" so to say.
Just as in Germany, a significant portion of doctors (30%) in the UK were born in another country. So it seems they (just as Germany) still pretty much rely on foreign workforce which is also why the numbers didn't go down after brexit even with the foreigner unfriendly political climate that caused it.
Americans wanted to beat the Soviets to the moon the first time around, and I don't think it was because they'd "been propagandized into the position that they alone are exceptional".
reply