Waterluvian

I might! Thanks for a thread to pull. I’ve never heard of the concept.

Sounds like climate change induced disasters, and why it’s so easy to not take responsibility.

Maybe you just feel like your brain and its dominance over the other organs. What does your heart say? Or your spleen?

> it is definitely not a cricket bat.

My son has empirically disproven this when he was four.

He's also disproven that it's not a cookie.

Yeah, exactly my thoughts. I wish these kinds of structures in science had been taught to me with a lesson on, "models are useful metaphors, not cosmic truths." Because they often got taught alongside the things that are much closer to cosmic truths (I see you philosophers lining up around the corner to argue that these never exist. Go on now. Git!).

I wonder if there's a survivorship bias there: those who can and do reject the status quo.

An onotlogical pivot I experienced in my late teens was recognizing that the taxonomy of life is not some immutable fact that we're uncovering. It's this Sisyphean task of providing structure to something that is everchanging. It's never complete, never correct, but it's often useful. In that way it's a lot like unicode!

When thinking about the evolution of the taxonomy of life, I think about how there's really no good reason to imagine a lifeform as being a singular, physically connected organism. We structure it that way because it's useful. We see trees and we imagine each one is a lifeform, but there are entire forests of just one tree. I don't think it's too bizarre to structure a model that demonstrates communities of lifeforms (whether ants, slime mold, or humans) as being effectively one conscious being.

Most of them seemingly have control problems where even if they do, it is in the form of a giant money pile still under their control that they give away the returns of, usually also completely under their control.

Does this actually work or is this just the best option he's got given he cannot live forever?

I have this weird vision of an alternate reality where governments (say, National Archives) are the ones creating the models as a public service and then the rest of the industry is just commoditized pricing of hosting them, competing with value add bits. And we’re on here reading articles about how the latest release of the EU model does a better job generating maps now and the new Canadian model seems to apologize less and whatnot.

The other reason is car seats. I can’t fit more than two and I’ll be damned if I trade in for a minivan!

The socialized cost of protecting your castle is massive. It makes for a very popular and very lazy target for this kind of “think of the children” (or centenarians) style rhetoric.

Something I keep in mind when reading these kinds of opinions is that when war breaks out and moves through a region (think Ukraine), the elderly are common among those who cannot flee.

Isn’t it the very first thing just after the title?

To pivot a bit from the point above: I'm not sold on the core premise of the need for "hypergrowth." I think the American economy has been an incredible engine for productivity and I mostly agree that there's a lot of things that get in the way of the same in the EU and other countries. But I look around the U.S. and wonder what exactly the goal is if it's not actually giving everyone safer, more comfortable lives.

What alternative is there? The Americans are not an option anymore. It seems sensible to me that we want to get very close to one major power, and more close to everything else. Diversification.

We don’t do trade with Trump. We don’t get attacked by Trump.

Joking aside, I don’t believe you can and I’m fine with that. It’s still so much simpler and predictable.

Yeah but can your tooltip render in neon brown?

Darn. My iPhone 12 still works great but doesn’t get most of this. I’ve been waiting for an AI interface that doesn’t suck and I think Apple stands a chance at nailing it, given that’s what they’ve historically been good at.

Not trying to proselytize an opinion here, but every time I think about VR Goggles + a virtual flat screen, I think about how entire industries exist to make us comfortable while we watch our real flat screens. A VR option would allow me to just lay comatose-like in my bed, goggles affixed to my face, as I watch whatever. It terrifies me, partly because of how good I bet it could feel.

As an amateur student of history and a professional watcher of television, I think one possible conclusion I've drawn is that the happy state is tiptoeing around your enemy forever. Or rather, tiptoeing with your enemy. That there is no "and the enemy was defeated and we returned to the Shire and the galaxy is finally at peace." Quietness, even if it's not called peace, is the virtuous state we should endeavour to preserve.

They clearly realize it and are doing something to stop it. I understand the idea of imagining this as an underserved market they could do something about. Twitter worked that way. X intentionally doesn't want to, and wants to guard its monopoly over the information is controls.

It's like paywalls. Some news companies share free news as a sort of loss leader. Others say, "if you aren't going to pay we simply don't want you here."

> thinking I could have Claude solve some random unproven OEIS sequence before breakfast

I've been wondering what exactly the point is for being the meat proxy who pays for these things. I mean, obviously there's personal satisfaction and maybe some glory. And there's the fact that someone has to be the first to do a thing.

But I've been thinking about it like a sort of lazy loading of knowledge. AI has brought us to a new frontier for some amount of undiscovered knowledge. Do we discover it for the sake of discovering it? I think for the most part we've been lazy loaders: we discover all kinds of stuff when we need to. Whether it's a war or a space race or chasing wealth. Then again, there's all kinds of academics who do it for the sake of doing it.

I don’t think they want to nor is it good for them to long term. But I bet they’re institutionally incapable of avoiding it given the KPIs that drive the entire employment ambitions of many managers.

My pitbull is a good dog. Sure, it's been carefully designed to be an incredibly dangerous and violent pit fighter, but I didn't actually ask it to eat any faces.

I think space being imagined as some magical international waters that protects something from government powers is poisonous thinking.

It just means it’s protected by no power instead of a power with an agenda.

Practically, if it was ever possible to build such a thing, it would take a fraction of the effort to destroy it.

Consoles sold at a loss before. They can do that again if it enables selling software, which often has pretty fantastic margins.

Kind of. That one was closer to C&C Renegade.

Gaming is a larger market than Hollywood. Maybe it becomes a distraction for Nvidia, but someone will step in. That might actually be a good thing and why Nvidia wont do that: it creates an under served market in which newcomers can cut their teeth.