Mediaboss Marketing

Members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus are unhappy that the debt ceiling deal wouldnt significantly reduce federal budget deficits in coming years. One referred to the deal as a sandwich made of excrement, another called it insanity, and a third tweeted a barfing emoji. Classy stuff.

Realistically, though, there are two problems with the right wings position on deficits. One is that the rapid reduction in deficits those legislators call for would not be healthy for the economy, especially right now. The other is that while deficit reduction is important in the long term, right-wing Republicans are looking for balance in the wrong places.

On the first point, its lucky for the U.S. economy that the deal reached by President Biden, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and their lieutenants is less aggressive than the House-passed Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would reduce federal deficits by $4.8 trillion over 10 years.

Too much fiscal austerity too fast can harm the economy because the federal government takes money out of Americans pockets when it spends less (or taxes more). While the economy is running hot now, with unemployment in April matching the lowest since 1969, there are abundant signs that a recession is near. The Conference Boards index of leading economic indicators declined in April for the 13th consecutive month, signaling a worsening economic outlook, the board, a business-supported research group, announced.

Even the cuts in the debt ceiling deal would be a mild retardant for economic growth. As reported by The Times, the deal would hold nondefense spending in 2024 at roughly its 2023 level and would increase it by 1 percent in 2025. An initial estimate by The Times predicts that the limits would reduce federal spending by about $650 billion over 10 years, assuming that spending grows at the anticipated rate of inflation after the caps lift in two years.

Economically speaking, reducing federal budget deficits is important but not urgent. By the International Monetary Funds calculations, Japans central government debt totaled 221 percent of its G.D.P. in 2021, compared with 115 percent for the United States, and Japan seems to be doing OK. (Those numbers are somewhat exaggerated because they include debt held by other parts of the government, not just debt held by the public.)

Eventually, though, something will have to be done. In February the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that by current law, U.S. debt held by the public (a narrower measure than the I.M.F.s) will reach 195 percent of G.D.P. in 2053, double the level of 98 percent in 2023. At that point, an uncomfortably large portion of federal spending has to be devoted to paying interest on the debt. Theres no risk of default, because the government can always print more dollars to cover its debts, but too much money printing would make it hard to keep inflation under control.

That brings up the second thing thats wrong with the right wings condemnation of the debt ceiling deal. Freedom Caucus members, along with other Republicans and a fair number of Democrats, have unwisely ruled out tax increases as a key component of fixing the governments finances.

The drama around the debt ceiling deal, which is far from over, is intense because negotiators are trying to achieve something that is impossible. They are looking for all of their deficit reduction on the spending side, rather than a more reasonable mixture of spending cuts and tax increases.

Cutting Social Security and Medicare is tough because they are justly popular programs. They are lifelines for a large share of the public. They are growing because society is aging, not because older Americans are getting sweetheart treatment. Cutting defense is tough because the world is a perilous place (although I do think theres some fat to be pared). And cutting discretionary spending other than defense is tough because it accounts for only about 15 percent of outlays and does many valuable things, from funding scientific research to helping the poor to guaranteeing food safety. It would take devastating reductions in key functions of government to make a significant difference in the outlook for deficits and debts.

That leaves higher taxes as the underexplored option. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by current law, total outlays by the federal government are projected to rise to 30.2 percent of G.D.P. by 2053 from 23.7 percent in 2023. That big increase in outlays is not matched by a corresponding increase in revenue, which the C.B.O. projects will edge up to 19.1 percent in 2053 from 18.3 percent in 2023.

To keep debt from soaring, one of two things needs to happen. Either outlays need to increase more slowly as a share of G.D.P. or revenues need to increase more rapidly. I think the revenue option is going to come to the fore eventually.

Germanys economy is likely to shrink about 0.3 percent this year from 2022, a team of Deutsche Bank economists led by Stefan Schneider, the chief economist, wrote on Friday. Next year doesnt look great, either, the team said. With the expected U.S. recession weighing on German economic momentum toward year end and in early 2024, we have cut our annual forecast for G.D.P. growth in 2024 to 0.5 percent from 1 percent.

But one cant understand my ideas about Wikipedia without understanding Hayek.

Jimmy Wales, a founder of Wikipedia, blog post, July 17, 2005

Excerpt from:
Opinion | The Impossible Math of the Debt Deal's Detractors - The New York Times

from the questions,-questions dept

There have been various chapters in the new large language models (LLMs) story. First, people were amazed that systems like ChatGPT could write a sonnet about bananas in the style of Shakespeare, and in just a few seconds. Soon, though, they realized that chatbots replies might be grammatically correct, but they were frequently peppered with false information that the system simply made up, often with equally fake references. Were now at the stage where many are starting to think through the deeper implications of using LLMs, with all their powers and flaws, and how they will affect current working (and living) practices. As a post on the Vice site explains, one group grappling with this issue is the Wikipedia community:

During a recent community call, it became apparent that there is a community split over whether or not to use large language models to generate content. While some people expressed that tools like Open AIs ChatGPT could help with generating and summarizing articles, others remained wary.

Wikipedia already has a draft policy on how LLMs can be used when writing Wikipedia entries. The draft provides an excellent summary of some of the key problems of using chatbots, many of which will be faced by people in other domains. Here are the main points from the basic guidance section:

Do not publish content on Wikipedia obtained by asking LLMs to write original content or generate references. Even if such content has been heavily edited, seek other alternatives that dont use machine-generated content.

You may use LLMs as a writing advisor, i.e. asking for outlines, asking how to improve paragraphs, asking for criticism of text, etc. However, you should be aware that the information they give to you can be unreliable and flat out wrong. Use due diligence and common sense when choosing whether to incorporate the LLMs suggestions or not.

You may use LLMs for copyediting, summarization, and paraphrasing, but note that they may not properly detect grammatical errors or keep key information intact. Use due diligence and heavily edit the response. Dont hesitate to ask the LLM to correct deficiencies such as missing information in a summary or an unencyclopedic, e.g. promotional tone.

You are responsible for making sure that using an LLM will not be disruptive to Wikipedia.

You must denote that a LLM was used in the edit summary.

LLM-created works are not reliable sources. Unless their outputs were published by reliable outlets with rigorous oversight, they should not be cited in our articles.

It would be foolish to try to forbid Wikipedia contributors from using chatbots to help write articles: people would use them anyway, but would try to hide the fact. A ban would also be counterproductive. LLMs are simply tools, just like computers, and the real issue is not whether to use them, but how to use them properly. The guidelines listed above essentially amount to yes, you can use chatbots to help you write and improve your writing, but they should not be relied upon unquestioningly. That means human input and checking afterwards are indispensable. Also important is flagging up that LLMs were used in some way, so that users of Wikipedia know where information is coming from, and can be alert to possible problems arising from this fact.

The Wikipedia draft policy concentrates on how LLMs output might be used to create material for Wikipedia entries. The Vice article points out that there is another question, about whether there should be restrictions on how LLMs can use Wikipedia entries as part of the machine learning process:

The [Wikipedia] community is also divided on whether large language models should be allowed to train on Wikipedia content. While open access is a cornerstone of Wikipedias design principles, some worry the unrestricted scraping of internet data allows AI companies like OpenAI to exploit the open web to create closed commercial datasets for their models. This is especially a problem if the Wikipedia content itself is AI-generated, creating a feedback loop of potentially biased information, if left unchecked.

That concern seems overblown. Low-quality training materials can cause chatbots to produce questionable or downright harmful outputs. An obvious way to counter that would be to encourage the use of high-quality input that has undergone some kind of fact checking. Wikipedia is one of the best and largest sources of such material, and in hundreds of languages. Provided the final Wikipedia policy on LLMs requires human checks on chatbot output, as proposed in the draft, the use of Wikipedia articles for training LLMs should surely be encouraged with the aim of making chatbots better for everyone.

Follow me @glynmoody onMastodon.

Filed Under: chatbots, chatgpt, llms, wikipediaCompanies: openai

The rest is here:
Wikipedia Grapples With Chatbots: Should It Allow Their Use For ... - Techdirt

Infamous Rugby journalist Stephen Jones is not one to mince his words when it comes to his thoughts on the state of the sport.

Writing for The Sunday Times, the Welsh journalist has at times come under fire for what has been perceived as unnecessarily negative coverage of the sport.

One such article relates to the upcoming London 7s and the shortened code as a whole which Jones labelled as Gaudy fun, not to be taken too seriously.

However, despite the article being published at 12.01am on Sunday May 14th it has subsequently been removed from The Sunday Times website.

This removal was not missed by those on social media with screenshots of the article doing the rounds whilst Joness Wikipedia page has had a rather hilarious update.

Now reading as: ON 14 May 2023 Stephen accidentally revealed himself to be a time traveller after publishing an article on The Times newspaper website (quickly deleted) wherein he wrote a scathing article about the Rugby Sevens at Twickenham stating "Yesterday at Twickenham, nearly 50,000 were expected for the London leg of the HSBC World Sevens Series. What is more, Twickenham say they expect 25,000 to attend today for the finals" - The Twickenham London leg of the 7s was scheduled to be played on 20 May 2023, a whole week later. This was revealed on a Reddit post /rugbyunion[4].

What this post notes is that Jones not only got the date of the tournament wrong but also quotes an unnamed source for an attendance figure that couldnt possibly be correct given the events date.

Continue reading here:
Stephen Joness deleted rugby 7s article leads to hilarious wikipedia update | RugbyDump - RugbyDump

Bradley Dack leaves Blackburn an absolute hero the kind that maybe you can only understand if you are a Blackburn fan. They are precious.

There are thousands of professional footballers and most of them have unremarkable careers. It is a game that celebrates the few at the expense of the many. A game that, for much of the past decade, has been reduced to a singular debate: Messi or Ronaldo.

But far beyond the bright lights of the Ballon dOr, the Premier League best XIs and Project Mbappe, there are footballers at every club in every corner of the world who are adored by fans. For the past six years at Blackburn Rovers that player, more than any other, has been Bradley Dack.

Bradley Dack will never play in the Premier League. To many his career may even appear to be a story of unfulfilled potential; a seemingly unstoppable rise to the top flight cut cruelly short by not one, but two cruciate ligament injuries. We are quick to judge as football fans. We stay up late at night, scouring Wikipedia profiles, making snap decisions on whether a player had a half-decent career or not based on the clubs they appeared for, the goals they scored or saved, and the honours list at the bottom of the page that, for most, consists of a couple of player of the month awards or a coveted Hammer of the Year gong.

Theres only one judgement that really matters though: what did that player make you feel?

If they never played for your club, then your opinion of their utility is instantly discounted. Tweet your tweet, say your piece, its all immaterial. Because you only truly understand the value of a player, of the person, by how they made you feel when you watched them in the colours that are etched into the fabric of your being.

When they pulled you out of your seat as they surged down the channel; when they gave you that cherished moment with a loved one as they scored a last-minute winner or cleared one off the line at the death; when you winced as a challenge sent them crashing into the turf, promotion dreams on the line but more than that, the pain of seeing someone suffer in agony, someone who, despite all that time sharing the same stadium, you have never met, but still care for on a level that makes very little actual sense.

On a football level, Dacks greatest achievement at Rovers was his pivotal role in securing promotion out of League One at the first attempt. The significance of that triumph isnt lost on Rovers fans, especially against the backdrop of Sheffield Wednesdays plight in the play-offs this season. Were it not for Dacks goals and Dacks vibes, at a time when the club was on its knees, a short stay in the third tier could have given way to a long, gruelling struggle to escape.

Dack was clearly at home in the Championship. Fifteen goals in his first season from midfield; nine in 22 at the start of his second as he looked on course for his best tally in blue-and-white halves and destined for the Premier League with or without Rovers. Until tragedy struck against Wigan. I was there that night with my dad, back home for Christmas and attending one of the handful of home games I can attend each season since moving out of the area. It was immediately apparent the situation was bleak. Thirty years of following Rovers distilled briefly into recollections of harrowing injuries, heroes strewn on the grass.

As he assessed Dacks injury after that grim 0-0 draw on a freezing December night, among his concerns for the player Tony Mowbray acknowledged, For the club its hugely disappointing and maybe on a day like today Bradley Dack can do something on the pitch that takes the mediocrity out of it. For all the tributes to Dack as he departs Rovers this week at the end of his contract, that line from Mowbray, the nod to a rare individual talent who could overcome footballs ever-lingering mediocrity, is arguably still the most fitting.

For it wasnt just the fans that felt something when Dack played at his best. Mowbray spoke of him with the fondness of a proud father; Ben Brereton Diaz and John Buckley beamed alongside him as the trio enjoyed their regular fishing trips; former captain Elliott Bennett displayed the warmth of a brother, unforgettably holding up Dacks shirt as the pair celebrated another goal in front of the Blackburn End.

In Messis iconic celebration of the same genre, he held up his own shirt Dack had Bennett on hand to do it for him. Even Jon Dahl Tomasson, despite trying to usher in a new era this season, was eventually won over by Dack as he made his latest comeback from injury.

Its clear that Dack has left an indelible mark. A fan hero denied the wider acclaim that is ultimately meaningless. Anyone who watched him at Blackburn, and many who played alongside him, will remember him fondly for being a player who could do what they could only dream of doing with the ball. A player who not only captured the energy of entire stadiums, but ignited it, bent it to his will.

It seems that should be worth more than any trophy, any record-breaking transfer, any bulging Wikipedia honours list. Most football fans will never be able to savour the joy of having watched Bradley Dack in his prime; of recalling a player who, during his six years at Rovers, helped restore the soul of a broken club. It is a legacy scored in hearts and memories, the places where, when all the dust settles, it matters most.

See the rest here:
Bradley Dack is the kind of football hero that cannot be judged on a ... - Football365

Here we are going to share the news with you that Jack Whitehall and his girlfriend Roxy Horner are trending on the web and gaining the attention of the people. They are in the headlines because of the viral news that they are going to be parents. This news is getting circulated on the web and creating several questions in the mind of the people. People are hitting the search engine to gain all the details about the news. What happened to them? Is this news true? We will try to cover all the details of the news. Lets continue the article.

According to the report, Recently Jack disclosed the news on Instagram with a post of two black-and-white pictures featuring him and Horner smiling and Whitehall holding the scan pictures in his hand. If we talk about his girlfriend so Roxy Horner is a famous model and made her debut in British Vogue at the age of 17. He is born on 20 June 1991. She is 31 years old. Several things remain to tell you about the news, which you will find in the next section of the article.

According to the report, She has been a part of the premiere Model Management modeling agency and is a model for various brands, for example, Bohoo, Superday, and Boux Avenue. She has started her career as an actress and has been coming in a few films. At the time of the 2021 Brit Awards, Horner experienced the situation of collapsed at the event, which was being hosted by Whitehall. After getting unconscious she was admitted to the hospital and she got to know that she has diabetes. She has shared her bad experience with her fans on her Instagram story. Scroll down the page to know more information about the news.

Furthermore, Roxy was previously in a relationship with singer Jack Bugg. She spent a good time. Reportedly, She was also linked to Leonardo DiCaprio and Joey Essex. She and Leonardo appeared together at various events and although there were reports that the duo spent a night at a hotel. However, she denied the rumors. Jack Whitehall and Roxy Horner first met when the former was traveling to Australia. The couple started living together at Whitehalls house in London, on the basis of the sources. We have shared all the details about the news, which we have fetched from other sources. If we get any further details we will tell you first at the same site. Stay tuned for more updates.

Read the rest here:
Who is Roxy Horner? Jack Whitehall's Girlfriend Age, Wikipedia And ... - PKBnews.in