Oh man! I came here to complain about printing! I just discovered yesterday that you can no longer drag and drop print jobs from one printer to another. Apparently you can move a print job via some command line stuff but it just ended up deleting the jobs entirely. The only reasons I found this out is because the printer which had been working fine moments before just stopped working after replacing toner. No amount of deleting and re-padding the printer or power cycling either machine fixed it. One time the whole OS just froze and I had to force reboot. I spent a good chunk of the afternoon trying to get one 3 page document to print. To be fair, I haven’t had problems with this setup for 10+ years but when it went south it also went to the remote frigid corners of Antarctica.
I think this is a valid question for this specific case, but may not always be possible. That said, I think as a user I would probably prefer it if under the hood the old function called the new so they can deprecate the behavior without breaking the API. In that way you can still emit the deprecation warning while also only having one actual code path to maintain.
It’s also worth noting that this was specifically about the effects of ChatGPT on users’s ability to write essays: which means that if you don’t practice your writing skills, then your writing skills decline. This doesn’t seem to show that it is harmful just that it does not induce the same brain activity that is observed in other essay writing methods.
Additionally, the original paper uses the term “cognitive debt“ not cognitive decline, which may have an important ramifications for interpretation and conclusions.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see similar results in other similar types of studies, but it does feel a bit premature to broadly conclude that all LLM/AI use is harmful to your brain. In a less alarmist take: this could also be read to show that AI use effectively simplifies the essay writing process by reducing cognitive load, therefore making essays easier and more accessible to a broader audience but that would require a different study to see how well the participants scored on their work.
> In a less alarmist take: this could also be read to show that AI use effectively simplifies the essay writing process by reducing cognitive load, therefore making essays easier and more accessible to a broader audience but that would require a different study to see how well the participants scored on their work.
In much the same way chess engines make competitive chess accessible to a broader audience. :)
No one is surprised by this, though. Naturally, when you write, you will learn to write. When you make an LLM write, you're going to learn how to make an LLM write (well).
The question is how well your assumption holds true that learning to write generalizes to "an important form of learning".
Not sure how prevalent this is now, but a few years back I was seeing a lot of "cash price" advertised for stuff that was lower by whatever the merchant didn't have to pay in fees so sometimes cash may not be subsidizing the credit industry.
Handling cash costs money too. Sometimes more than handling cards. But a proportion of customers who like cash are very strongly convinced they are "subsidising" card payments, and might be attracted by pricing like that, so maybe it still ends up being a net gain.
From a percentage perspectice, handling huge amounts of cash should be far more expensive; I know one of the operators over here in my country: If you are a supermarket chain and have three locations in one large street, they charge you for every stop a minimum fee + additional handling costs.
When I suggested pricing like that might work, my point was not that it'd be cheaper. I 100% agree it'd be more expensive. But if it attracts a sufficient amount of additional business from people who want to pay cash it could still be a net gain (assuming those customers are still profitable).
There's no longer a blanket ban, but there are still obstacles:
* Mastercard and Visa don't allow debit card surcharges, even if the transaction is run as "credit".
* American Express only allows surcharges if they also apply to all other forms of card payment. This includes debit cards, which interacts problematically with the previous rule; if you want to do a card surcharge while accepting all three card brands and remaining compliant with all their rules, you have to apply it only to Mastercard and Visa and not American Express, even though American Express is the most expensive.
* Several states still don't allow card surcharges, and others don't allow merchants to profit from surcharging (which makes it hard to advertise a uniform surcharge) or have regulations about how prices have to be listed if a surcharge is going to apply.
Rules like these don't make it impossible to do surcharges while remaining compliant, but they make it significantly harder than it'd otherwise be. I think this is the primary reason why most merchants still don't do them. (Well, that and that their competitors don't, but that could explain either equilibrium.)
A cash and debit card discount is the same as a credit card surcharge, I fail to see how this qualifies as “significantly harder”.
Target, one of the largest retailers, offers a 5% discount for debit. Comcast, Tmobile, Verizon, ATT, Lumen, utilities, governments, and insurance companies also routinely charge extra for credit cards (or discounts for debit/cash).
Daycares charge more for credit card, as do doctors’ offices.
At least half the gas stations I see have long had higher credit cards prices.
Not to mention contractors for physical labor.
The change since 15 years ago is stark. If I wasn’t getting a minimum of 3.5% cash back on my purchases, I would use credit cards a lot less.
Huh, I didn't know that about Target (perhaps because I've lived for years in a state that doesn't allow this, so I can't get the discount where I live).
I did know that recurring utility-type payments, and payments of more than a couple thousand dollars, tend not to accept credit cards or to charge a lot extra for them, presumably because it's not as costly for them to make their users eat the inconvenience of setting up ACH payments. Most merchants can't get away with that. I've also seen it for gasoline but chalked this up to gasoline being an unusually fungible and high-demand commodity.
Do you know how they're handling the American Express problem? I don't think I've noticed a big contraction in how many merchants accept it.
> Huh, I didn't know that about Target (perhaps because I've lived for years in a state that doesn't allow this, so I can't get the discount where I live)
I linked to a website that shows the federal government specifically allowing it. You can definitely get a 5% discount in your states’ Targets for paying with a debit card:
Oh, this is a specific co-branded card, that's a different thing and one I've seen a bunch of places.
It seems pretty uncontroversial on the internet that American Express has this policy, and I can't find anyone alleging that Dodd–Frank prohibits it. There is a class action lawsuit against American Express alleging that the policy is illegal (https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxngqeovx/...), but it makes its argument on antitrust grounds and does not cite Dodd–Frank—which it would surely do if there were a plausible argument that Dodd–Frank prohibits this. I don't know exactly how this squares with the text of the FTC's business-guidance page, but that page is a concise summary and doesn't get into all the details of the law, so my guess is that the situations it applies to are somehow different from what American Express is doing.
It’s not really a co branded card. They send you a Target Redcard you can ignore, but all it does is charge your debit card as usual. There is no credit check.
Your Amex lawsuit link is about Amex prohibiting different discounts based on payment card networks (see #4 at bottom of page 2).
Amex’s contract does not overrule the federal government’s rule that a merchant can offer a discount for debit and cash.
The Supreme Court upheld AmEx’s steering provisions in 2018.
Page 10: "Under Amex’s NDPs, the merchant...may not impose a 'parity surcharge' on credit card transactions, meaning a surcharge in which the merchant assesses the same surcharge amount on all credit card brands and does not surcharge debit cards at all."
The card issuers used to prohibit it, not been the case in a while though. They used to prohibit having a minimum transaction amount or charging transaction fees to your customer too. It never stopped small merchants though
> As I understand (I could be wrong), with agent mode, it edits the file for you, no way for you to accept before it does, so you have to manually check the diff, roll back parts you don't want, etc.
> Am I right?
With cursor you get reasonably flexible control at many levels. You can have it only suggest changes that you have to apply manually or you can have it make automatic changes with various ways to review, change, reject or accept. I usually have the changes made automatically but don’t accept the changes automatically. Cursor has a UI that lets you review each edit individually, for the whole file or all files. Depending on the situation I will use whichever level is appropriate. The UI also allows you to revert changes or you can ask the AI to undo or rework a change that you just approved so there’s plenty of ways to do large changes without giving up control. There’s also a stop button you can use to interrupt mid-stream if the work it’s doing isn’t what you want. It isn’t flawless but I haven’t found myself in a corner where I couldn’t get back to a happy path.
reply