I have been sitting and waiting for the day these trackers get exposed as just another health fad that is optimized to deliver shareholder value and not serious enough for medical grade applications
I don't see how they are considered a health fad, they're extremely useful and accurate enough. There are plenty of studies and real world data showing Garmin VO2Max readings being accurate to 1-2 points different to a real world test.
There is this constant debate about how accurately VO2max is measured and its highly dependent on actually doing exercise to determine your VO2max using your watch. But yes if you want a lab/medically precise measure you need to do it a test that measures your actual oxygen uptake.
Am I the only one who’s been so late to crypto? I still have not touched a single cryptocurrency, even somewhat stable/legit ones. It always gives me a bit of FOMO hearing these stories
I'm not sure your explanation is correct. The quant bots are also decision systems who attempt to predict in non-deterministic environments.
The reason they got replaced isn't because the problem became deterministic (like a calculator). It's because the error rate and the cost got to an acceptable place when compared with the cost of a human quant.
Banned I understand but ridiculed? I would say that these bad drive by spammers are analogous to phishing emails. Do you engage with those? Are they worth any energy or effort from you? I think ghostty should just ghost them :)
EDIT: I'm getting downvoted with no feedback, which is fine I guess, so I am just going to share some more colour on my opinion in case I am being misunderstood
What I meant with analogous to phishing is that the intent for the work is likely the one of personal reward and perhaps less of the desire to contribute. I was thinking they want their name on the contributors list, they want the credit, they want something and they don't want to put effort on it.
Do they deserve to be ridiculed for doing that? Maybe. However, I like to think humans deserve kindness sometimes. It's normal to want something, and I agree that it is not okay to be selfish and lazy about it (ignoring contribution rules and whatnot), so at minimum I think respect applies.
Some people are ignorant, naive, and are still maturing and growing. Bullying them may not help (thought it could) and mockery is a form of aggression.
I think some true false positives will fall into that category and pay the price for those who are truly ill intended.
Lastly, to ridicule is to care. To hate or attack requires caring about it. It requires effort, energy, and time from the maintainers. I think this just adds more waste and is more wasteful.
Maybe those wordings are there just to 'scare' people away and maintainers won't bother engaging, though I find it is just compounding the amount of garbage at this point and nobody benefits from it.
Anyways, would appreciate some feedback from those of you that seem to think otherwise.
Each project gets its own share of supervision depending on how critical human intervention is needed.
I have some complex large and strict compliance projects that the AI is a pair programmer but I make most of the decisions, and I have smaller projects that, despite great impact on the bottom line, can be entirely done unsupervised due to the low risk factor of "mistakes" and the easiness of correcting them after the fact they are caught by the AI as well.
Thank you, that's the primary issue I have too, I'm surprised it's not being talked more here in this thread. I am on iTerm2 in macOS so not specific to your environment. It's really annoying and restarting doesn't fix it in my case, only a fresh session.
reply