Okay, that was condescending. Elitist just didn’t seem like the right word to me.

Won’t your donation be even more meaningful if it turns out they don’t have much now?

Why do you need to know that they already have a good library before you’ll help improve their library?

I don’t think it’s elitist to say that you should read books before you build a library. That’s just good advice. And it’s fair to wonder if someone who cannot string a sentence together reads many books.

Oh my god it’s the same person who made me think I was having a stroke with the Rodney Dangerfield post. For fucks sake, I think we’ve found a use for AI at last.

OP, allow me to help:

“Rewrite this as if your brain is not melting like a crayon that’s been farted on a thousand times a second” (and then paste in what you want to post).

The professor seems to understand the difference between the full complexity of the real world and a limited educational exercise with a manageable scope. Mr. Melon does not understand this and seems to only be able to engage with the real world at full complexity. The professor is completely open about the fact that he’s running an artificial scenario with a limited focus. Mr. Melon just lobs confounds at it repeatedly. I will have to say that the professor is in the right here.

But because the professor has a british accent, glasses, and a bow tie, he’s coded as an elitist prick. And Mr. Lemon’s vernacular, colorful clothing, and casual style is supposed to contrast with this in a classic “book smart” versus “street smart” trope. In fact the entire movie is built on this premise: real world wealth and popular appeal help Mr. Lemon triumph over age, social hierarchy, institutional rules and many other obstacles to achieve social success and the attention of eligible young women. Therefore, in the language of the film, Mr. Lemon is most obviously “right.”

I wrote this mainly to reassure myself that I was not in fact having a stroke while reading the OP’s title.

I think you are asking, essentially, why there are no retail non-profits. Operate them like a charity for the common good, etc, but all you do is sell stuff. No fancy human rights work or animal rescue. Just sell stuff. Cheap. As a non-profit.

Here’s the best possible answer to this: good idea - go do it.

I think what you will find is that you can’t get any kind of investment to help you, not even a small business loan. So it’ll be hard for you to compete at all. And in the beginning you’ll be so small that you probably won’t be able to sell for less than the big stores. They buy at special lower prices because they are so big. You don’t get that. And even if you frame the whole thing as a charitable enterprise to help the poor, who will your donors be? Why would anyone give their money to this cause over something that helps the most vulnerable directly?

Oh… so it’s kind of like taking something that’s few-to-many and making it many-to-many, and the number of connections is what costs you.

You seem to know more than me so can I ask you a question? I have a general sense of what the context window is / means. But why is it so small when the model is trained on huge, huge amounts of data? Why can the model encompass a whole library of training data but only a very modest context window?

Locales differ but in my experience:

1. no one is required to eat the cafeteria food
2. the cafeteria food has a cost
3. the cafeteria food quality was low when I was young but not terrible, and is much improved now
4. many kids absolutely do bring their own lunch. My kids look at the monthly menu and decide if they want to bring something from home or eat what’s being offered at the cafeteria

To be honest I find your question confusing. It seems to start with the question of whether everyone has the option to buy items or eats at the cafeteria, but then jumps suddenly into “is the food that bad.” I don’t honestly understand quite what it is you want to know.

Women commit more infanticides but we would talk about that as a collection of cases of mental breakdown or criminal intent, not as an essential female quality. Similarly, this supposed “trend” with vanishingly small numbers should be looked at as a collection of cases of gross neglect or criminal intent, not as an essential male quality.