Arn_Thor

Not “purely” as a byproduct. They are complementary industries. Without the leather trade, meat producers would have to pay to properly dispose of that byproduct.

I agree that would be wasteful, and I love quality leather products myself. But I recognize that the leather, meat and dairy lobbies all work towards the same goal of ever expanding the industry.

So I am always on the lookout for great vegan leather. If the demand market dries up, this will raise the cost of meat and dairy, which will give alternatives to those a better chance to thrive.

Excellent. I appreciate what you've done there!

Color me surprised. But good on them!

It befuddles me too. My understanding is that government spending is approved by congress and that all organizations except the Pentagon have passed their audits. This is not to say that there isn't _some_ waste, fraud and abuse in between the cracks, but any large expense is approved by Congress and the executive can't unilaterally override those spending choices.

I’d like one source please

No, it won't. But that's not the point I was making

Except I can run R1 1.5b on a GPU-less and NPU-less Intel NUC from four-five years ago using half its cores and the reply speed is…functional.

As the models have gotten more efficient and distillation better the minimum viable hardware for really cooking with LLMs has gone from a 4090 to suddenly something a lot of people already probably own.

I definitely think a Digits box would be nice, but honestly I’m not sure I’ll need one.

Touché

In my 10 years in HK, including months worth of weekly language classes, “n” and “l” were treated utterly interchangeably. Not to say that it’s not worth the effort in some contexts to make a distinction, but if the aim is to get a functional understanding of the language the “lazy” version is useful.

I’m not paying a cent but I see AI buttons and ads for it all over my OS and software interfaces. Let’s just say this renaming makes me think that’s not about to improve anytime soon.

I haven't sat down and quantified the difference, no. But it doesn't matter if the number is 2x, 10x, or 100x. The point remains the exact same: to not get personally offended when people point out our privilege. They are not, and have never been, dismissing the work we have done to get where we are. But put in an accurate context, we are perhaps not makers of our own success quite to the degree we once imagined.

I'm not in great disagreement with that argument you put forward on behalf of Reed. I'd just say that the many causes of social justice go far beyond who gets to sit at the table with the other capital owners. I'm not so interested in C-suite representation as how discrimination compounds for those belonging to overlapping minorities within the working class. Don't know what Reed says about that, but it's in such a space I believe progressive polices have done and will do a lot of good.

I see. I have indeed seen a handful of comments espousing those views through the years, but they're few and far between.

To me the "class-only" framing is rather old fashioned, and often voiced by those at the top of the pecking order—whom one might say have some privilege so I'm not surprised they feel protective towards the classic framing.

I see much more use in thinking about the class struggle intersectionally, in part because I think it's more accurate to how the world works, but also that by understanding the different experiences of groups within the working class we can build broader, stronger and better alliances. Two cents' worth from me, anyway.

And there's the rub. You feel like your hard work is dismissed. To be honest, that's a framing problem. I think you misunderstand what people are saying.

Take me as an example: I'm in a very enviable and privileged position. I worked really hard for it. But if someone were to tell me "you're privileged", I don't get my feelings hurt.

I recognize that 1) someone else working 10 times as hard as me still would be extremely unlikely to get where I'm at if they were from another group. 2) If I were in a disadvantaged group, all the hard work I have put in is unlikely to have been enough. 3) Therefore, the fact I'm sitting here, no matter how hard I worked, is ALSO very much down to luck.

The first time I thought about it in those terms, my ego took a hit. It is an uncomfortable upending of the way I used to see the world and my place in it. But it is nonetheless true. Trust me, I am not trying to dismiss your hard work, but make you see it in its true context.

And after some time thinking about this I have a much greater respect for those that struggle as hard as, or harder than, me because they don't have the privileges I was born with.

By the time I gained political sentience, PC referred to perceived limits on speech and conduct that went at the expense of current or historically marginalized groups.

All these things have been derided as "politically correct" in my lifetime (and therefore a bad things): "You can't make a joke these days", i.e. you will get an earful if you make sexist, homophobic or racist jokes. "You can't give a woman a compliment these days", i.e. you can't engage in wanton sexual harassment. "Education is too politically correct these days", i.e. schools teach a history curriculum that recognizes and is critical of imperialism, racism and the like.

In my 30-odd years of life I don't recall it ever being used in the way you describe, but it could predate me.

> If an unapologetic Marxist is attacking "Woke", that really disproves the contention that it is purely some right-wing bogeyman

Except, no. A concept can be multiple things at once, we are complex thinking beings.

Woke is all at the same time:

1) what it arose as—a left-of-center terminology, to some extent in-group language, describing certain values.

2) sincere adoption and practice of those values

3) insincere, performative adoption of policies aimed to project those values.

4) A combination of 2 and 3, where those agreeing with 2 has no problem with 3 because the end result can be beneficial: who cares if Intel comes from a place of sincerity if their hiring policies make it easier for qualified minorities to get a food in the door?

5) Anything and everything the far right doesn't agree with, including 1 through 4 but also much more that isn't remotely related. DEI? "Woke." Climate change? "Woke." 15-minute cities? Believe it or not, also "Woke".

It's funny how we're going back to centuries-old architectural practices. In the before times we didn't have climate control. In the middle times we had climate control and didn't have to worry about the energy usage. And now we have to return to natural ways of controlling temperatures so we don't spend too much energy on heating and cooling.

But my curiosity is directed at even more extreme examples. How bright and livable could one make a big box with almost no windows these days, if one really tried? (As I'm typing this out the counter-question is of course: why bother?)

It is handled with climate control, at great energy cost. It's all fine for the person in the office, less so where fossil fuel is burned to generate electricity.

Another catch is heat management in summer (and much of spring and autumn). The problem gets dramatically worse closer to the equator, of course.

I love the natural light of a glass structure, but with the abundance of high-quality LED light (for a price, naturally) and ways of channeling natural light I wonder how modern architects would reimagine more traditional closed-in highrises.

I'm saying the fear people feel is real, and "valid" in the sense that the rest of us must recognize it, not dismiss it.

Only when we meet people in the fearful place they're at, and they feel heard, can we start to try to make them see that the fear is not justified or rational compared with the actual risk posed by the homeless or mentally ill or what have you.

I do agree, it's human rights for everyone or no-one.

You're entirely ignoring the fact that it is effective in getting people clean. That is the outcome we're trying for, and achieving with this policy.

The fact that you're paying for a drug user to be warm and safe may stick in your craw, but it helps more people get clean, and so is good for them, their families, society and even your neighborhood as they return to be productive members of society. The money spent on their childhood and education isn't "wasted". They are less likely to be a nuisance.

Your feelings of disgust towards these people is a natural reaction. But if you can manage to see past it and realize these are human beings no different than you, by far and away mostly people who want to get clean but find it impossible in their circumstances and need help doing so, then you could be part of the chorus of voices pushing for positive change.

Let's all pull in the same direction: strong social safety nets, community building and mental health care to prevent people falling to drugs. And if they do, the care and assistance they need to pull themselves out of it. Not everyone's going to manage to do it, but eveyrone deserves a solid second chance.

I think perhaps your biases are showing in the language you deploy (junkeis, free to destroy). You're asking for evidence that's readily available, if you want it, from studies to meta studies. The evidence ranges from conclusive to inconclusive, which isn't surprising given the many different types of implementation and existence of support ystems (or lack thereof).

In terms of cost, we need to look at the total social cost. If (big if) we were to assume that property destruction in housing units costs money, it is no strech to think that any marginal decrease in for example medical expenses (much more expensive in total social resource terms) more than make up for it. And a marginal improvement in a long-term expensive social problem would easily justify a high initial upfront cost.

I'm not saying you're wrong for asking the question, just that I have no problem accepting the findings that housing first is a cheaper solution in the long run if it gets more people clean and off the streets--as the evidence indicates.

Whether the very real fear of the homeless/mentally ill/drug addicted is justified and rational is a big elephant in the room.

This point of yours resonates with me (paraphrased): if we assume that inaction is not an option, the conversation can progress to solutions.

Any frame gen gains don’t improve latency so the usefulness is reduced

We’re trying to explain to you that they’re NOT interchangeable. What you’re doing is applying a false syllogism, but in question form.

Let me illustrate with an example in a statement form: “A rock can’t fly. You can’t fly, therefore you are a rock”.

You’re saying “A wants to do X. You are criticizing A, so you must object to X being done.” That is making an unjustified leap to your conclusion. It doesn’t matter what the subject is, this is a logic error.

Except in many, if not most, cases a company’s inefficiencies IS your problem. The perfectly informed rational consumer doesn’t exist. We’re forced to buy what’s on the shelves that we can afford, and the water in the pipes and power on the grid. When the businesses collude and price fix and lower the quality of your goods you DO suffer and your only recourse is regulation.

And get out of here with that libertarian “services I don’t use” nonsense.

Let me quote you: "Are you suggesting there is no possible way to make the government more efficient in a way that reduces costs by some significant amount?"

The poster said no such thing.

I think they were being sarcastic…

That is a straw man, and an ugly one at that.

Every system has inefficiencies, including the government.

The fallacy is to assume that businesses inherently have less inefficiencies than government and/or that a government’s cost/benefit equation improves if it’s run as a business. Often, their functions overlap and this can be the case. Automated traffic monitoring is cheaper than having people count cars. But beware privatization that promises efficiency and lower costs—the result is almost always worse services, maintainable debt and in time a government bailout.

Often, their functions do not overlap. The purpose of social security is not to tighten spending as much as possible, it is to improve quality of life as much as possible.