There are actually a whole bunch of good medium to dark roasts out there, but third wave coffee is hip and has been for a while.
If you like Starbucks beans, you'd probably like a better dark roast. Try Lavazza. Coffee snobs will look down on it, but they're highly consistent like Starbucks while offering more variety and more flavor. Lavazza Super Crema makes a pretty nice espresso and is cheap relative to high-end coffees.
Ehh, who cares what the snobs think? Drink what you like! I've been experimenting with coffee for like 2 years, and have found myself really enjoying dark roasted stuff (as well as lighter stuff!)
The truth is, you can get a really fruity single-origin bean but as soon as it goes into a latte, typically you've lost 99% of the origin characteristics. It gets a bit wasteful and expensive. Cafes typically go for house roasts that lean darker, and I can see why: they just work better in milk!
A real, actual doctor told my brother, who has a chronic headache disorder, to just keep taking OTC painkillers.
You very specifically should not do that; you'll develop a medication overuse headache and be worse off than you were.
It gets worse, though. I was able to ask them a few questions about their symptoms, compare them to entries in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, and narrow it down to, iirc, two likely possibilities.
One of them was treatable. The treatment works. They still have pain, but can do stuff.
An AI that makes stuff up and gets stuff wrong isn't any different from the doctors we already have, except you can afford to get a second opinion, and you have the time available to push back and ask questions.
Edit: to expound on quality of the doctor - diagnosis and proposing a treatment was the work of several hours for me, a layman. A doctor should have known the ICHD existed. They should have been able to, in several minutes, ask questions about symptoms, reference the ICHD to narrow down likely diagnoses, and then propose a treatment with a "come back if that doesn't help".
My thought would be that the game mechanics essentially constitute a contract regarding what you and others can do with your in-game property. Something would only be a crime if it's outside of those terms.
So far, the following has worked OK for me as a custom prompt for ChatGPT.
```Minimize compliments.
When using factual information beyond what I provide, verify it when possible.
Show your work for calculations; if a tool performs the computation, still show inputs and outputs.
Review calculations for errors before presenting results.
Review arguments for logical fallacies.
Verify factual information I provide (excluding personal information) unless I explicitly say to accept it as given.
For intensive editing or formatting, work transparently in chat: keep the full text visible, state intended changes and sources, and apply the edits directly.```
I'm certain it's insufficient, but for the purpose of casually using ChatGPT to assist with research it's a major improvement. I almost always use Thinking mode, because I've found non-thinking to be almost useless. There are rare exceptions.
'Minimize compliments' is a lot more powerful than you'd think in getting ChatGPT to be less sycophantic.
The parts about calculation work okay. It's an improvement over defaults, but you should still verify.
It's better at working with text, but still fucks it up a lot.
The instructions about handling factual information work very well. It will push back on my or its own claims if they're unsupported. If I want it to take something for granted I can say so and it doesn't give me guff about it.
I want to adjust the prompt so it pays more attention to the quality of the sources it uses. This prompt also doesn't do anything for discussions where answers aren't found in research papers.
It's not that you need to ask it to be honest, it's that the defaults are kind of stupid and obnoxiously sycophantic. ChatGPT is also prone to getting stuck on particular ideas. If you're using the vanilla personalities without a custom prompt, not aware of and working against its issues, and not starting new chats occasionally you won't get good results. You'll get good-sounding garbage.
Part of my custom prompt is
```When using factual information beyond what I provide, verify it when possible.
When researching factual questions—especially by relying on papers and studies—actively look for null findings, negative results, and contradictory evidence, not just positive or confirmatory findings.```
To me, the most interesting result of that part of my prompt is that in thinking mode, it ends up re-checking it's assumptions and sources fairly often. It's not about honesty, but correctness.
A custom prompt isn't the be-all end-all either. The right kind of questioning is important, and you also need to get a fresh context when you ask new questions or if you want to double check something.
I'll say that a search engine needs to have fresh data. When I search for a phrase from a reddit thread I saw earlier, I want that exact thread to be in the results.
When I search for a brand new restaurant, I want to see a map entry for that restaurant and a link to a newspaper article, ad, or facebook post announcing the opening of that restaurant (though I probably won't click on the third).
Their problem is with false positives they find, not true positives you find. My application for a credit card was somehow flagged as fraudulent. Chase repeatedly asked for additional forms of ID, then told me the scans I sent were illegible. (The scans were fine; I think they just needed an excuse.) I went to a branch with the physical documents, and they said they couldn't look at them. The branch put me in an office and called the same telephone support, with the same result. I eventually gave up.
I guess I'm lucky they rejected me before any money changed hands. I've heard horror stories from people with significant assets at their bank, locked out until an actual lawsuit (the letter from a lawyer didn't work) finally got their attention. I think it's like Google support, usually fine but catastrophic when it's not.
> The branch put me in an office and called the same telephone support, with the same result.
As far as I can tell, going to a branch of a big bank to address a problem nowadays is similar to going to a cellphone store for tech support. All they can really do is call the same hotline or fill out the same webform you’d have access to at home.
Anecdotal but just came back from 2 weeks abroad and didn’t have to take any action to continue using my chase card. Also I believe the conversion rate was better than the local.
If you like Starbucks beans, you'd probably like a better dark roast. Try Lavazza. Coffee snobs will look down on it, but they're highly consistent like Starbucks while offering more variety and more flavor. Lavazza Super Crema makes a pretty nice espresso and is cheap relative to high-end coffees.
reply