Glyptodon

Won't matter unless service providers are forced to have one single rate for all payers. Which we can't even manage at grocery stores.

So I think the wealth tax is different.

The reason more CEOs getting shot might make a difference is that many CEOs care about status and being able to mention it in the right places. Historically many people love it so much that they call themselves CEOs and Presidents of companies that are small businesses.

If these same people can no longer be open about their role and status, which they value, there will be some kind of change. I'm not sure what it is, but security guards don't restore their freedom to feel thoughtless about their role and lifestyle.

Whereas with taxes... Maybe some people brag about dodging them or their suspect filings that get them big refunds. But they're mostly not public and not tied to identity the same way. And even the wealth tax isn't remotely the same as the public being vocal at large.

For it to be comparable we'd have to have modern highwaymen and Robin Hoods somehow stripping the wealth, not the tax man.

Because the weight of any changes or perceived need to change come from the social burden that public violence would create in the shooting case.

And that doesn't seem to exist near at all with the wealth tax.

Not to my understanding. To begin with, it's far from given that "rare" books are all covered by copyright. But if they are, it's at best murky: whether you destroy the original doesn't really have anything to do with what you're doing with scanned contents. The scanned contents themselves may be inherently a copyright issue, regardless of destroying the original. The actual trained model has separate arguments more in its favor, so if no scanned contents exist - IE the data is read once for training and not stored or saved, they have a better argument. But in that case the destruction is totally disconnected from copyright, as they'd be totally okay to rescan the material.

What I see is that I have to read a bunch of stuff and go through a bunch of hassle to save money when the root of it is that if I tell an AI to do work on a task while I'm busy with something else and come back later I've doubled my cost because the cache expires too quickly?

TBH Facebook makes it so you can't even copy and open links or highlight text properly - it's 100% hostile and keeping up with that is a lot of effort that could be put to better use.

I think we have the ability to get rid of license plates altogether and restore some privacy. It's not like license plates stop LEOs from shooting people, like when they were chasing Dornier and unloaded on a Blue Toyota Tacoma when they knew his vehicle was a Grey Nissan Titan.

Are they focusing on RTS players with high APM?

Not Pharmacy, but I literally had Shopify checkout button clickjack me and then AI agent and human agents (chat, email, and phone) refuse to cancel the resulting order today. Despite contacting within 5 minutes. Given how hostile so many companies are, I question why they even bother appearing to have support.

But this doesn't seem likely to translate well to pharmacy, where there will be consequences for treating customers like vermin, as opposed to actual incentives to do it.

I wouldn't be shocked if the tech needed in places like pharmacy or other sectors where there's some level forced responsibility leads to the version that's actually palatable elsewhere.

Are they expecting parents to be held responsible when their kid gets given a laptop and doesn't put in the right age? Or is it just a best effort thing that "parents who want to" can opt in to and which mostly serves as a shield for online platforms who wave the "but age API said" flag whenever something sketch happens?

My limited and really non technical understanding of AI suggests that probability plays a very big role in AI behavior, and it makes sense to me that "reasoning" could be seen through a lens of creating additional content that will better constrain the probability distribution of the final output. In this case the "reasoning" done internally could be functionally bad or appear to be giberish so long as its effect on future generation is appropriate. To naive me who really doesn't know tons about AI this seems like it could be testable.

"Our position is that we want moats, just not that moat."

I disagree with this - plenty of people treat stock as just wanting a share of profits/ownership and not as value speculation. That said, I do think we should be making rules that devalue speculation, perhaps turn-based trading since there's no particular benefit to the world from high frequency trading or value discovery happening in 5 milliseconds instead of 5 seconds, and making it so that being publicly traded requires not having controlling owners or preferential share classes.

Edit: and with prediction markets you don't own anything. Even with commodity futures you can end up having to take possession of cows or something.

So I will admit the idea of "maybe you could make some guesses about the future and if you're right it's worth something" sounds appealing - like if I guessed people would get perfect nutrition by IV and not bother with eating and it came true and I made money from it, or the same about making money speculating on when the first Mars colony is founded, etc. But what I don't get, taking a step back, and never have, is what society and the world get out of having more accurate guesses about this. Even setting the obvious negatives (if you have your retirement savings sitting against a Mars colony before 2030 maybe you have some incentive to sabotage a launch in early 2029) aside, what are the positive values supposed to be? And I've never really understood this.

I mean I get how there are benefits to society from crop futures and insurance. I don't get how there are from an election prediction.

This reminds me of how people who worked for Facebook despite it being obvious that nobody with moral fiber should work for Facebook are more listened to when criticizing Facebook than people who realized the obvious to begin with. It's such a farce.

But it also reminds me that prediction markets are one of those things that are transparently a terrible idea because they create problematic incentives, and not just because people ruin their lives gambling. If you can make $1 million by triggering something that or getting somebody to trigger something that basically has no business happening, whether it's stripping on the Senate floor, causing a volcano to erupt, or crops yields to reduce by secret herbicide dusting, or any other bologna, somebody will do it if the balance makes it worthwhile. Likewise, they give people reasons to vote that are negative - "I have $100 on prop XYZ passing, of course I support it." (Though side note: the ubiquity of betting being super terrible for society because people can't handle gambling at all is one of those things that I've been super surprised by that seems to have good evidence now. I guess because gambling mostly just doesn't do it for me to the degree that I find it shocking just how addictive it is and just how much it exacerbates bad situations for many people.)

And I can't see how there's any benefit that's bigger than the problems. If prediction markets are better than Nate Silver, why is it worth all the problems to society for that extra accuracy margin? I can see why individual actors might find value, but I don't see how their value accrues to society in any way that makes it worth it.

My fear has never been rebasing itself, but that I make some kind of mistake with a random change conflict and don't notice it because it's not tested for directly. But I'm also not sure if that's categorically a git fear. (Edit: related to this, I think this sort of minor "itchy worry" is grounded in how sometimes conceptually simple diffs look messy during conflict resolution.)

I wonder if this works better on phones? From part 2 on it seemed like normal scroll to me.

It presented some things I didn't know - I thought all H1Bs had to be advertised to US applicants, but it was just done in places nobody sees and applicants ignored, while this says most places don't even need to do that, for example.

But I also think its timelines of things in India seemed sort of perfunctory and repetitive.

As a tangent, I've long thought that the counterintuitive easy fix for some of the problems with these visas is to convert them to green cards faster (maybe 18 months?) as that should instantly help undo wage suppression pressures.

I think this is all true, but that unlike with Moore's law and improved PC tooling and capabilities, we also have essentially existing biological evidence that there should be a way to create much better intelligent systems in terms of training, memory, and efficiency. With classic PC evolution we didn't even have that evidence but still could make a relatively strong inference (Moore's law). But here we basically have evidence that there can be something much improved and know that it's only going to take research and discovery to figure it out, not new hardware processes.

This is an appealing price point for the US market for what it is. I suspect outside of the US you'd need to be a little cheaper still, I hear there are various kinds of trucks under $10k in India for example, though I really have no idea about their size or specs.

Some of this seems worth adopting. My personal hand already has some modifications to traditional school cursive and I've never liked certain letters maybe because of being left handed.

Is this related to the post where someone copied a UI and said as long as they changed 3% it's fine or totally unrelated?

I think technology can actually solve a lot more things than it has, the problem is that foundational problem solving does not make a unicorn startup with earthshaking economies of scale in most cases, and especially so if there's a physical world piece involved, and even more so if it's going to go asymptotic.

Just to throw out a random example - could technology, in terms of advances and improvements to allocation, distribution, and consumption, play a part in solving the western US's water issues? Probably. But would it be something that make a trillion dollars and a household name? Maybe not. And could saner policy, like making farmers have to bid for acre feet instead of getting it for basically free + distribution cost also help? Sure.

Likewise, even with AI most software is still crap. Like when have you heard about a doctor who loves their EHR? Like never.

So I think technology could be a solver of at least a lot more things. But we've created a market where people want to exhaust every flavor of flim flam and trend of the moment first. Because we've glorified the business of tech more than the actual improvements and aspirations that should be possible.

Those are both on the list of words I thought should have been in a category or two lower because I consider them both sufficiently widely used.

It is incorrect.

Yeah, that one seems inaccurate to me without reference to a unit of land or some other fixed input.

Some of the definitions offered are slightly short of what I expect. Like for "Obsequious" it offers "obedient to an excessive or servile degree" which isn't wrong, but it misses the expression of a sort of noisy eagerness in that servility.

Musk is kind of fascinating.

On one hand SpaceX and Starlink are businesses that it's practically embarrassing that seemingly nobody else even tried to build. You look into it and look at Bezos and Blue Origin and wonder if the markets can actually build new businesses anymore.

Then you set them aside and realize that he basically got away with visa fraud because he was wealthy to begin with and lucked into making tons of money off PayPal and didn't even found Tesla...

...and the lesson I take away isn't that there's anything special about Musk. It's that if you have billions of dollars almost anybody with some kind of preoccupation can build giant businesses related to it.

For example, I totally believe if some random geek obsessed with SeaQuest had been part of the PayPal Mafia they could have figured out a way to make a billion dollar business out of underwater habitats and submarines.

...at least if they were crazed in public enough about it, which seems to have turned into a key part of how Musk works at some point.

Kind of like if you have a lot of money and a few obsessions you now get ahead more by having Tom Cruise couch hopping moments than by being an actual Howard Hughes or Hearst.

Separately we obviously really shouldn't be letting companies with such concentrated ownership be publicly traded with these multi-class shares, but I guess that's where we are now: reinventing feudalism in market trappings.

TBH this sounds harder to parse than I expected as there are various situations where rephrasing things is acceptable. I think historically allusion and rephrase, particularly of common and well known things, without citation I think was much more common, but now academics often err in the direction of finding citations for the sky being blue or water wet. And I do trust that it very much went beyond the pale given the university revoking a degree.

Even as a solo dev there's generally been a yawning gap between k8s and manual infra that nothing has ever filled that well and it's part of why things like Heroku were so popular for a while.

Getting loans seems definitionally and literally very much not something that involves earning.

"Earning" is a subtle word with a variety of usages. One usage is limited to wages or return on labor or effort, and in that sense can refer to anything where a reward is due and proportionate to an effort, like a treat after a hard workout, buying a car after saving for years, or wages. Another usage focuses on profit. When AOC talks in the zone of this first sense, it should be understood that there is only an implied fair reward for sweat and tears, and that past a certain point it's really entirely unrelated to wages or effort.