What keeps someone from generating this video with AI?
283 karma · joined March 4, 2024
A better analogy: look at all these highly trained engineers, mathematicians, doctors, writers, philosophers, writers, scientists.
How many dumbass politicians do we need to keep it all running smoothly?
Turns out no matter how dumb politicians were, overall society has been developing positively over the history of mankind.
They would have to either pay the tax on gains or write off losses.
In bigger cities, it might be closer to 20-30% of their economy.
Take that away, and it would have a cascading effect through entire countries.
Since they can't fix the real problem are trying to go "green" in counterproductive ways that make things worse: blowing up nuclear plants or taxing cow fart.
Why bother learning any editor when you do not need to write code, and there is no reason to enter
gg=G``zz
I do not know much about Iceland, only that, like New Zealand (and Canada), it is sometimes painted as some sort of progressive heaven that the US should aspire to.
Then, as you learn more, it turns out life isn't that great there.
Doesn't the price fluctuation reflect an economic reality?
Related: couldn't a country adopt euros voluntarily without joining the EU? Like Ecuador adopted US dollars.
The amazing videos and photos carried the promise that I could experience that for real. They were aspirational.
Today I suspect every cool shot is made of pixels arranged on a 2D screen by an algorithm. It doesn't do it for me.
That makes me sad...
In this particular case that makes the message more trustworthy for me ;-)
I am saying we are not selecting for those people.
When we hire at the university, we ignore creative, tenacious people and instead select mediocre people with a nice woke story that meets the woke requirements.
I would say the overwhelming majority of even university faculty members lack a basic understanding of statistics.
In their heads, they’re doing something closer to informal Bayesian reasoning: they have prior beliefs based past observation, previous research, experience, etc., wich is then all baked into every choice and decision
But when it comes time to write the paper, they translate that into frequentist statistics: p-values. As if all should be compared to random chance: significance thresholds, confidence intervals.
They do this to give their conclusions formal credibility: oh look how compelling my result is, I found all this new surprising stuff.
Close to 100% of life sciences research works that way.
Would free healthcare reduce deaths in uranium miners that are smokers? Probably some, but would it bring that to the same levels as non-smoking, non miners? Unlikely so. Hence it would be silly to pretend all the cancer deaths are due to lack of health care.
The smoking uranium miner example has a surprisingly realistic story, comes from real data; the dangers of radon in the basement were deduced from comparing cancer rates in smoking uranium miners with high radon in their basements, then they removed what they thought was the smoking and uranium contribution, then fitted to the general population.
Seems like a simple solution.
Viruses do not multiply endlessly. Most viruses exist in stable ecological cycles.
Most viruses are beneficial to life. We complain about the few (and tiny minority of viruses) that infect humans and we do so from a selfish perspective, but forget about all the other that make life and evolution possible.
As a matter of fact evolution favors reduced lethality in many cases because wiping out hosts is bad for viral survival.
Agent Smith is way off on this one ...
I find it deeply ironic that the author can't even produce readable text, while complaining about other, much more complex tasks not working.
The author refuses to take minimal, common-sense measures to make the text more readable.
Here is one empirical data point.
I switched over to Firefox this morning and will advocate for it.
I've considered it for a while, but I never felt motivated to make the switch. It took me a good half hour to set it up the way I like it.
1. Big words at the start - pretending to hack at a problem so big that just swinging the axe is a major undertaking
2. The prose slowly drifts to make less and less sense; words have no practical meaning anymore.
3. Simplistic images galore. Various plots via cellular automata and "pretty" images show things that have nothing to do with the topic and are only distant metaphors at best. Yet these images are the proof that it all "works."
4. A nothingburger by the end. Leaves you wondering, why did I read all this?
Every essay by Wolfram is the same.
---
The donkey, feeling unappreciated, approaches God with a heavy heart.
"Dear God," says the donkey, "why is it that all the other animals mock me, belittle me, and hold me in contempt?"
God listens patiently and replies, "My dear donkey, I understand your pain, but there's nothing I can do."
Surprised, the donkey responds, "But you are God! The all-powerful, creator of all things. Surely you can help?"
God smiles gently and says, "I may have created the world, but even I cannot change public opinion."
---
Matt Mullenweg might feel like God and might be among the most influential and richest people on the planet. But they won't be able to change public opinion, which is without a doubt against them.
I would advise stopping the madness before it is too late.
Sadly, instead of supporting open source with $5 million, they each will spend 10 million on lawyers.
The Shameful Defenestration of Tim
https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestr...
A credit card balance during the grace period is not a debt - it is no different than paying by check - it is not more than a delay between a purchase being reflected on an account. That's all.
Only the balance after the grace period should be counted as a debt if we are using that term to talk about a population being more or less indebted than say X number of years ago etc.
A credit card balance is simply a form of bank account for large number of people.
I think that statement can't be true.
Detailed measurements exists for less than a hundred years - yet the WWA is cock sure this is the highest rainfall ever. It goes to the credibility.