NoraCodes

I mean, it's not like it's rocket science!

More seriously, the humans in question were very skilled pilots with huge amounts of general flight experience and specific lunar training; they also had access to hardware that had already been expensively tested in the lunar environment. Neither of those were available to this project.

Reposting this due to relevance to the ongoing conversation about the White House guidance on memory-safety.

There is no control available; we don't have a second population of people who did go through the beginning of the COVID pandemic, 2020 political environment, and so forth, but did not receive the stimulus package.

I suggest looking into some basic experimental design texts if you're interested in why this is so important!

You can't possibly tease out all the different causes of the effect you're discussing here. Are you sure the worker shortages weren't due to the inflation? Much of that was greedflation, where companies raised prices due to the crisis and then kept them high, but wages didn't go up, so some people - especially those with long commutes - were actually working at a loss.

Not to mention that the amount given - a total of $3200 to childless people over an entire year - amounts to around 3 months of an average 1 bedroom apartment's rent in America in 2020, much less in cities, and not including groceries or utilities. As a young, childless person who got the full amount that year, it gave me exactly what I needed to be able to move out, but certainly wouldn't have sustained me - even in a "flop house" - long enough to really avoid looking for work.

> Chinese imperial rule lasted much longer, maybe 1,500 years?

This is true only if you consider many dynastic orders with significant periods of instability in between to constitute a single uninterrupted period "Imperial China". No single dynastic order lasted more than 500 years, arguably none more than 300.

> I think a lot about the fact that we carry on our persons the most addictive device ever created.

The device is not addictive. Some applications of the device are addictive. It may seem pedantic but I think it's an important distinction; it's the difference between, for instance, parents limiting "screen time" and parents engaging deeply with what their kids are doing on their "screens", which can range from learning programming to interacting with real-life friends to, yes, mindlessly scrolling Instagram or getting radicalized.

We do not, in fact, all do this; for a long time, I used "non-technical" to refer to someone I know who is a prominent historian of Ming China and can read Classical Chinese, one of the most difficult written languages in the world, especially for native English speakers. It would be difficult to call her "unintelligent" with a straight face, and yet, she didn't have a smart phone until last year, because she knows next to nothing about computing beyond how to use Microsoft Word and the databases relevant to her work.

I have heard others say similar things about people with similarly deep skills in "non-technical" fields. Equating the ability to touch computers effectively with general intelligence is the height of hubris, in my opinion.

Why on earth would you choose the word 'lynch' here? At worst I'm suggesting mild disapproval and regulation, not historically racist mob violence.

It is! This method of doing so has overwhelming negative externalities, though. I'd expect anyone who actually gave a shit about AI empowering people to create to spend just as much effort pushing legislation so the displaced artists don't starve on the street as a result.

You're comparing human artists to horses? Seriously?

> It's my sincere hope that this AI technology hammers in the last nails on the coffin of copyright and intellectual property as a whole.

If it does, I will give you one thousand United States dollars, and you can quote me on thst whenever you like.

More likely, big companies will retain control as they always have (via expensive lawyers), and individual artists will get screwed.

That's an intentional misinterpretation, I think. I mention art as an economic activity because it's primarily professional artists that are harmed by the widespread adoption of this technology.

My opinion is based on my interactions with my friends who are artists. I admit freely to caring less about what people I don't know say, in the absence of additional evidence.

Marginally, yeah, since you're not supporting the development of more capable labor-saving devices in this category.

I'm still not a fan, though.

I did not say they were exclusively that; I said they were that.

Once we as a society have implemented a good way for the artists whose work powers these machines to survive, you can feel good about using them. Until then, frankly, you're doing something immoral by paying to use them.

This is a tired argument; whether or not the diffusion models are "learning", they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists, and should be resisted for that reason alone.

It is. I switched away from Gmail; many have.

> Can you name any social structure in which this is not true?

That's a rather disingenuous framing; I think we could probably do quite a lot to reduce the extent to which it's true without any particularly radical changes to our society. When we do start talking about radical changes, there are a lot that are not just likely to work but actually pretty well proven, like a UBI, improved labor rights, well-regulated and well-supported unions, wealth taxes, and so forth.

The possible alternatives are not "if you don't have a job you starve on the street" and "fully automated luxury gay space communism".

> Much more likely is them to spend the next 10 years at a relatives house speed running Mario.

Despite the disdain which you seem to hold for speedrunners (why?), a lot of really interesting hacking comes out of the speedrunning community. Some very interesting applications of deep learning had their start in the TAS community.

I'd rather ten people "waste" my tax dollars on speedrunning or art I don't like than one person be prevented from making art that's important to me (or doing some cool math, or whatever) because their boss's boss wanted a percent of a percent towards another yacht.

> Why is everyone in such a rush?

Because we live under an economic system that says you must produce value for capital or die.

This is all very good advice. AND, I think we would have many fewer bad programmers and many more good ones if fewer Knuths were spending eight to ten hours a day mopping floors at fast food restaurants for $7.25 an hour, or writing garbage JavaScript for fly-by-night startups for $65,000 a year.

I won't, since instances like mastodon.social have been using "post" for over a year now.

Personally I think "toot" is perfectly fine; no sillier than "tweet".

The spelling is "Mastodon", like the extinct megafauna. The client also displays other ActivityPub feeds.

> Is racism so evil that it's better to kill every human to avoid it ever happening?

The companies that make and operate these systems - like most companies - are more interested in avoiding PR problems than avoiding harm to humans. This is just one somewhat humorous example of that general policy.

chanukah is 8 days. presumably one puzzle will be released each day.

If I see functionality like this on a company's website, I am going to find someone else to do business with about 80% of the time.

> the bigger issue is the population of homeless that refuse to go because they are not of sound mind and are not thinking rationally.

This is an emotionally appealing explanation for many - "we can't help them, they're just crazy" - but I've had a hard time finding evidence for it. Do you know of some study that supports this idea?

A meta-comment, but, what is the difference between "learnings" and "lessons"? Why use the former when we have the latter?

Sounds like we need to replace the structure, given that it's not fit for purpose.

This isn't the standard to which comments on this website are held, generally; why does this one bother you?

Oh, absolutely. I'm all for building smaller phones. If I could get a Pixel 3a new today, I absolutely would be using that.

I'm just saying that GP is being a bit disingenuous in setting this trend at the feet of Google or manufacturers of Android phones when Apple, too, has been increasing the size of their phones and cutting smaller products.

The issue is the duopoly itself.

> all Android phones (last I checked) being phablet-sized

Major manufacturers, Apple included, keep making phones bigger; it's frustrating. However, I think it's a bit unfair to say that, for instance, the Pixel A-series (which I've used for years) is "phablet sized".

The current flagship iPhones are 6.7" (iPhone 15 Pro Max, $1199) and 6.1" (iPhone 15 Pro, $999). The current flagship Pixel phones are 6.3" (Pixel 7, $599) and 6.1" (Pixel 7a, $499).

> Android phones are basically ad consumption devices

It's possible that this is a fair criticism of some Android devices, but with YouTube Vanced/ReVanced and Firefox with AdBlock Plus, I haven't seen an obtrusive ad on my phone in years.

There are many things iPhones do better than Android devices, but these two criticisms are basically nonsense.

Edit: Apple also has a very small phone in the iPhone SE, but they're not continuing to produce those (per latest reports, anyway) so it doesn't strike me as a fair comparison. If we include older generations of products, there are tons of small Android phones.