AnimalMuppet

"Something changed in business". Interesting.

Not a freelancer (in fact, I am now retired), but I'm picking up that vibe as well, though I would not have come up with that description. I didn't necessarily see it in hiring, because I'm not looking. I might call it aimlessness, maybe? Businesses can't tell people why they do what they do, they just do... something. Like it's by habit, but they lost track of why.

As I said, just a vibe I'm picking up. I could be wrong.

Well, back in the day, you became a "senior software engineer" with three to five years of experience - so how do you describe yourself when you have 30 years of experience? Just "senior" doesn't convey an accurate picture.

True. But it is also true that your electorate is susceptible to the same bad judgment that ours is.

Wait, what? We have excess diesel? We're producing more than we can use? Then why is the price so high?

Trump will go away. Eventually he will die. But he laid out a blueprint for ruling by executive decree. (Yeah, previous presidents did too, but he took it far further than anyone before him.) Sooner or later someone smarter than him will come along and do it better and even more successfully.

American democracy is eventually doomed, unless there are structural changes that make this kind of thing impossible to ever happen again. I predict a Democratic president and Congress in 2028. If they don't fix this, in the first two years, then limited government will not endure in the US. (Why two years? Because they probably won't have enough of a majority in Congress after the 2030 midterms. That's just how these things usually go.)

Mind specifying which coffin?

Instability doesn't have to be transient. Society can remain unstable for a really long time.

And if you think that climate change is going to destroy the ability of large regions to feed themselves, then you're looking at the future.

Judges are supposed to make their interpretation on the law. The law wasn't made for this? Then you better pass something that is. The alternative is to abandon the rule of law. "Just once, just for this urgent problem" rarely remains confined just to this problem. Keep the rule of law; pass a new one if you need to.

But Carnegie did, for the rest of his life. Griffin will, for the rest of his life. The distinction you're trying to draw is merely you being a prisoner of the moment.

For the antitrust argument, that is irrelevant.

That may be true, but why is Congress the metric? Congress is broken. In how many of the last 20 years have they actually passed a budget? It might be two; I'm pretty sure it's not more than five. That's their most basic job, and they can't or won't do it.

Whether Congress cares does not tell you whether there's a problem. The fact that Congress doesn't care is part of the problem - maybe the biggest part.

The Supreme Court did not "invent new powers" to block (much of) Biden's student debt cancellation. Biden did not have the constitutional authority to do that in the way he tried to do it. Simple as.

As for Trump... he's attempting, like, 20 times the constitutional overreaches that previous presidents did. He's winning on some of them; on many he's losing. I wish he was losing on more of them.

The Bravest Ever Bear.

The secret to writing a good childrens' book is writing something that an adult can read multiple times without going insane. The Bravest Ever Bear works by that metric.

By the way, note that His Dark Materials is atheist coded in the same way that Narnia is christian coded.

If they're poor and black, they're inevitably buying cigs, lotto tickets, and booze? Wow, man. Stereotype much?

> If the robotics are feasible their rise should be exponential, not linear

That totally does not follow. Robots can be feasible and their payback curve can still be linear or sublinear.

Take mining rare earth metals, for instance. The problem with mining rare earths isn't that it takes so much human labor. The problem is doing it without poisoning the surrounding 30 square miles. Replacing the driver of the earth mover with a robot doesn't fix the chemistry at all, nor (I suspect) does it significantly affect the economics.

The US isn't just a land. It isn't even just an economy or a currency. Most fundamentally, it's a set of rules that limit the power of government, and thereby allow more freedom for people. Everything flows from that, even the reserve currency. (Why put your foreign currency holdings in a currency where the government can arbitrarily decide to change the value? This is why the renminbi isn't catching on, despite China's power.)

That limited government is looking shaky right now. It's mostly Trump, but it's not just Trump - Congress has been increasingly worthless over the last couple of decades, and so the President has to rule more and more by executive decree. But Trump is pushing the boundaries of what the Constitution allows the government to do far harder than any President that I remember, even Nixon.

And if we lose the limited government, then within a generation or two, we're going to lose the rest. It won't be immediate (unless you fall afoul of the government), but it will come.

To the start of it? Maybe two years?

To the end of it? Maybe 40?

Depends on your metric.

I would say that the 1950s were better economically, at least in the US. If you were working class, you could make a living, and offer your children a better life than you had. That led to optimism.

But if you look at health, there were still a bunch of diseases that hadn't been conquered. Today is much better... if you can afford health insurance.

Technology? Today. No question.

Culture? They weren't on the 24th Marvel movie in the 1950s. Sure, there was a lot of schlock, too, but the original stuff was still original, not retreads of the same old stuff.

I like life now. But I'm not working class...

It's not just the Scrooges in power. Previous attempts to actually make a better world often made a worse one, and not just because of capitalist opposition.

If you use a computer to do something, training an AI to use the computer to do the same thing just takes the computer, which was there anyway. (Yeah, plus training the model, that's not my point.) But if you do something physical, replacing you takes something physical to be there.

We may eventually manufacture the robots to do all these things. We aren't there yet.

There was a YF-12 interceptor prototype that was a variant of the SR-71 prototype (A-12).

Rather than re-engineer the cart to use a different block? I mean, I guess when a part reaches end-of-life, your first move is to buy as many as you can, before you try to re-engineer things so it isn't needed, but... horsepower is horsepower. Torque is torque. It shouldn't be that hard to replace...

The claim was that there's an experience of a model losing power. Your claim amounts to "No, you are not experiencing what you say". That's quite a claim for you to make with no data and no argument.

If the virus didn't evolve the gene on its own, then "stole" seems like a fair description of how it got it.

That would require that Meta is carrying water for Trump. I don't think I see that as very likely.

Most humans will fail? How so?

Mind showing a source for IQ declining across the world?

So you use AI when it's all right to produce slop. That actually seems reasonable.

Reading this, my first thought is to worry about the security aspects of it. But if you're the author, I expect that you've spent a few brain cells in that direction...