It’s extraordinary how much standards have slipped. Completely rewriting a major press release that’s already been sent out, while pretending it’s ostensibly the same document would have been a major corporate scandal just 15 years ago.

Bingo, it’s pointless trying to suss out beyond a certain threshold.

Just assume it’s a mix.

How could a route busy enough to completely fill a train every few hours not justify some kind of regularly scheduled service?

Most cities at least have night busses. Tokyo has 0 options after midnight.

There are taxis and they are pretty cheap (compared to western Europe and the US). It is not a replacement but you CAN get home if you are out late.

There are likely at least dozens of different lobbies that can gain some advantage from pushing this.

Is the advantage corporate money lining their pockets?

Or is there another one?

Dozens of different lobbies means there’s no clear cut list of advantages.

Unless you just want an exhaustive enumeration of every possible human desire.

Why continue involvement with a project that clearly devalues their “customers” or “users” who care about documentation?

Projects that spend time on documentation for my robots have shown me they care about my use case!

Well, (a) why would they? (b) "uptime" has shifted from a binary "site up/down" to "degraded performance", which itself indicates improvements to uptime since we're both pickier and more precise.

Are we really questioning why cloud providers would offer better uptime guarantees?

Yes, I'm asking why they'd lock themselves into a contract around 5 9s of uptime since the parent poster mentioned that they won't do so. Of course, AWS actually does do this in some cases and they guarantee 99.99% for most things, so it feels a bit arbitrary - 5 minutes vs an hour, roughly.

So then its clearly not as trivial to achieve as you made it sound.

Are you replying to the right person?

You can certainly sign a contract for five nines SLA with cloud providers.

You just won't like the price.

Then it’s clearly higher risk?

If you are asking this question you don't understand what it takes to hit 5 nines in a real life measured system.

Who said signalling would be limited to just 1 thing at a time?

Can you link a source for it? That sounds too absurd to be true…

It’s not that absurd and happens all over the world in university systems. I had a Comp. Sci. Professor that taught assembly and graded on a curve. As you might imagine the one guy that was a wizard at assembly caught flak from the unwashed masses.

I had another professor that not only did a curve but dropped statistical outliers to prevent this problem, he literally explained his system on Day 1 of the course. This was 15+ years ago and by no means a new idea.

The future is not evenly distributed.

I tried to search for it, but even the 2 documents that superseded the one from around the time my daughter was at school at not available.

I mean, the site doesn't even have a valid secure certificate so...

In the site below (In Spanish) you can search for 10/2019 and a cursory translation of the document title will show that this is the proper document (For 2019 onwards, the replaced doc 04/2014 isn't available either)

https://koha.chubut.edu.ar/cgi-bin/koha/opac-search.pl?idx=k...

How do you reconcile the fact that many people in Anthropic tried to hide the existence of secret non-disparagement agreements for quite some time?

It’s hard to take your comment at face value when there’s documented proof to the contrary. Maybe it could be forgiven as a blunder if revealed in the first few months and within the first handful of employees… but after 2 plus years and many dozens forced to sign that… it’s just not credible to believe it was all entirely positive motivations.

Saying an entity has values doesn't mean the entity agrees with every single one of your values.

The desire to force new employees to sign agreements in total secrecy, without even being able to disclose it exists to prospective employees, seems like a pretty negative “value” under any system of morality, commerce, or human organization that I can think of.

That's a perfectly fine belief to have. I might even agree with you. But you're not really advancing a discussion thread about a company's strong ideals by pointing out some past behavior that you don't like. This is especially true when the behavior you're bringing up is fairly common, if perhaps lamentable, among U.S. corporations. Anthropic can be exceptional in some ways while being ordinary in the rest.

(I have no horse in this race. But I remain interested in hearing about a former employee's experience and impressions about the company's ideals, and hope it doesn't get lost in a side discussion about whether NDAs are a good thing.)

You dont believe it increases the probability that Anthropic may be hiding other unsavory things too?

I can see a very charitable person only seeing a small increase, but a literally zero change, and therefore zero relevance, seems absurd.

Are you confusing me with someone else’s comment?

This doesn’t address my question on what you believe.

Read the beetle example in that article. It's exactly on point.

You believe Anthropic is a rare subspecies of beetle (an "unsavory" company) based on a certain pattern on its back (certain NDA-related behavior). I and several others here have noted that lots of companies have that pattern on their backs. Which means that you are basing your conclusion on weak evidence. If you use Bayes Theorem to calculate the actual probability, you'll find that "[trying] to hide the existence of secret non-disparagement agreements" barely moves the needle at all. Does it move the needle? Sure. But much less than you think.

Even if it only moved the needle a tiny amount… that’s still a non-zero amount?

And therefore a non-zero amount of relevance?

Your original point carries an infinitesimal amount of weight. Yes, you win.

Win what? You haven’t even advanced a coherent argument yet… hence the original reply.

Lots of companies do it. Doesn't make it right, but HR has kind of become a pretty evil vocation, these days. I don't believe that they necessarily reflect the values of their corporations. They tend to follow their own muse.

Okay — but if Anthropic is typical banal evil in that regard, why should we believe they didn’t also compromise in other areas?

The exact point is that Anthropic is unexceptional and the same as other corporations.

I thought there were systems designed to effectively negate users that submit too many misleading posts.

Your parent post isn’t suggesting it’s always the same user submitting, just that users submit a lot of posts from this person.

Can’t say I agree, though. I don’t recall ever having seen one of his posts on HN, and a cursory search suggests they’re not even upvoted that much. Highest I found was under 30 points. But my methodology is flawed, as I basically searched for the name.