• 1 Post
  • 389 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle
  • I have a friend who has worked for 3 companies over 6 years. She has never once released a game as they were all cancelled before release. She found out she lost her job at one company after reading an interview about a bunch of studios being shut down. One of them was the place she worked. Even her boss apparently didn’t know.

    The studio she works at now initially hired her for completely remote work, but they’ve since changed their minds and now she has to drive over 100km to work every day. She was going to quit but she’s sticking with it for now in the hopes of finishing at least one game.









  • Half as Interesting has a video about low flow toilets. When the US passed the 1992 regulation limiting the amount of water a toilet could use, manufacturers rushed to meet the regulation and their designs were terrible. That’s mostly because the quality tests they had to pass were also out of date. Testing standards eventually updated and by 2003 low flow toilets were flushing better than old models with a fraction of the water. More recent models flush even better.

    So OP’s complaint about low flow toilets hasn’t been true for 22 years.



  • This seems like a version of the Liar paradox. Assume “this statement is false” is true. Is the statement true or false?

    There are a bunch of ways to break the paradox, but they all require using a system that doesn’t allow it to exist. For example, a system where truth is a percentage so a statement being 50% true is allowed.

    For this question, one way to break the paradox would be to say that multiple choice answers must all be unique and repeated answers are ignored. Using that rule, this question only has the answers a) 25%, b) 60%, and c) 50%, and none of them are correct. There’s a 0% chance of getting the correct answer.









  • It could hallucinate a citation that never even existed as a fictional case

    That’s what happened in this case reviewed by Legal Eagle.

    The lawyer provided a brief that cited cases that the judge could not find. The judge requested paper copies of the cases and that’s when the lawyer handed over some dubious documents. The judge then called the lawyer into the court to ask why he submitted fraudulent cases and why he shouldn’t have his law licence revoked. The lawyer fessed up that he asked ChatGPT to write the brief and didn’t check the citations. When the judge asked for the cases, the lawyer went back to ask ChatGPT for them, and it generated the cases…but they were clearly not real. So much so that the defendants names would change throughout the case, the judges who ruled on the cases were from different districts, and they were all about a page long when real case rulings tend to be dozens of pages.