adamsea

I see what you’re doing - you point out someone else’s flaws but avoid the matter at hand and under discussion.

Shame on you; you should be ashamed of yourself.

Um he incited the mob in the first place and his message also praised the mob; he’s a liar and manipulator and this isn’t a time to pretend that his second grade wordplay-cleverness deniability double language actually fools anyone.

He’s the fucking President of the country. He has responsibilities to defend the Constitution and the government and the country. He clearly failed those responsibilities today.

Shame on you.

I can’t believe this didn’t even break into the top five on HN.

Can someone explain what I’m missing?

IMHO we need government regulation around social media. They’re publishers, in some new and novel form.

Right now no social media company will get serious about targeted propaganda because it would cut into their profits.

But regulation can create a level playing field - the rules apply to everyone, so, more-or-less, everyone’s profits take a hit and now you’re not putting yourself in a weaker position vis-a-vis your competitors by addressing all these issues we are seeing.

Regulation can create a level playing field and solve the collective action problem by making all companies do the same thing at the same time, more-or-less.

Baloney. First, two wrongs don’t make a right. Anyone in support of this seditious and violent behavior should be ashamed.

Second, you have it backwards. Trump IS an authoritian - if today isn’t proof of that to you then I don’t know what to say to you.

Which sadly seems to exactly be the problem.

But I’ll reiterate the facts:

- Zero election fraud. - President Trump lying and saying fraud existing, that the election is not in fact legitimate, and encouraging a violent mob to storm the capital.

So confused. The argument is simple. Something of value requires effort to create. That effort is called labor. One way we quantify the value created by the labor of people is with money.

I think the argument can be boiled down to, “What is an army without soldiers? Or workers to maintain the robots?”

> I know what happens to the producers and owners of those plants who fail to provide safe environment and products, or who commited fraud and got caught,

Um it is the government that catches them and punishes them?

I had a difficult time understanding your comment - could you try expressing it another way?

This. At the bottom is someone doing work, i.e. labor. Capital is a force multiplier of labor, so to speak, and also capital is originally created by labor.

Why do you only ask about fallible unions?

Why not fallible corporations?

My point is simple. These are all human institutions. They're not "problems" with "solutions".

And, to answer your second question, I believe the scenario you idealize creates externalities like environmental pollutions which kills citizens, and creates conditions where companies exploit workers (consider what the food industry, meatpacking plants, etc, would look like without OHSA).

Where does technology come from?

Labor. The labor of knowledge workers, which is what software engineers are called by economists ...

Yes that can occur. Lots of things can and do occur.

If we think unions are bad because they do bad things under certain circumstances then that should also apply to corporations, no? Worker exploitation, ignoring externalities and such?

So, we could get rid of corporations and unions? Or ... have both, since like any human institution, both are fallible.

> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to.

Entitled? Who's talking about entitled? I thought we were talking about negotiation and leverage, since, you know, corporations are all about money and profit.

Is there some theoretical upper limit on what employees are entitled to?

> Don't think we've ever seen Hollywood in the modern era without unions, so not sure how you can claim it's "undeniable" the industry is better off. We basically have no clue if it's better off or not.

Um it's called looking at the past? Making reasonable inferences?

tl;dr I think the tech industry doesn't like to be criticized.

That's a good point about renewable energy sources.

I'd still argue it's reasonable to assume that ML will consume more power as use-cases for it grow (i.e. more and more models are trained), and, therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the energy usage.

Honestly - I think what you may have heard is "ML is bad/evil." And yeah some folks probably feel/vibe that.

That's different from "Like any other technology the full context of ML deserves to be considered, and since it's so hyped by billion-dollar companies right now, maybe a bit of pushback on all the hype isn't a terrible idea."

And yeah we should definitely look at the airline industry; pretty sure Mother Jones does, and there's no reason we can't look at the energy impact of multiple industries.

Why not both?

BTW what exactly do cops police what consenting adults do with each other these days? Honest question.

Lets spend that spy plane money on mental health professionals and stuff that actually helps people and lets us not use the police for everything all the time.

AKA "Defund the police."

Not sure why folks are defensive? The article is mainly informational.

TFA:

"What does this mean for the future of AI research? Things may not be as bleak as they look. The cost of training might come down as more efficient training methods are invented. Similarly, while data center energy use was predicted to explode in recent years, this has not happened due to improvements in data center efficiency, more efficient hardware and cooling."

Also. One flight in and of itself isn't an environemntal problem; thousands of flights are.

Training this one instance of a model isn't an environmental problem; I would be curious to see some educated guesses about the number of models being trained over the next ten years. Not an expert but I know that use of ML is exploding - lots of new use-cases and thus lots of new models.

So it makes sense to me think about this stuff.

To

The irony is many companies would benefit from this in terms of productivity, employee retention, morale, etc — but the culture is such that it’s a heavy lift at this moment to do this.

Excellent summary. And to make it worse the police were poorly trained and did a number of dangerous things:

- After the shooting it was over 30 MINUTES until an ambulance came for Breonna Taylor. What the fuck's up with that? It seems terribly wrong.

- 20 neighbors said they never heard the police announce themselves. The police said they did. So it's unclear if the police even said they were police.

- The policeman breaking down the door immediately put himself in the line of fire in the doorway, which he's not supposed to do, putting himself at risk and increasing the danger of the situation for everyone.

- Another policeman who was outside, once the shooting started, blindly shot through the windows of the apartment. He couldn't see what he was shooting at. I believe this was the only officer convicted of anything - for endangerment.

- Several shots from various officers went into neighboring apartments.

- When requesting the warrant, the police lied about their source of information.

- The police didn't have a formal plan for the raid.

TFA:

“ Evidence suggests that added sugars, particularly those in sweetened beverages, may contribute to obesity and weight gain, which are linked to higher rates of chronic health conditions like heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, the scientific panel noted.

More than two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese; obesity, diabetes and other related conditions also increase the risk of developing severe Covid-19 illness.

The scientific advisory group also called for limiting daily alcohol consumption to one drink a day for both men and women, citing a growing body of evidence that consuming higher amounts of alcohol is associated with an increased risk of death, compared with drinking lower amounts.”

Sigh. Can’t have anything stop those beer n’ soda profits :/.

Love it. We’re downvoting being outraged about racism now, huh? Is that it?

I mean it’s either good science or it isn’t.

Good point.

That said, lots of things are hard :). Which I don’t think you’re necessarily disagreeing with.

Oh - I may have missed a part of the post but the impression I got was that the resources / actions listed didn’t include the kind of accredited degrees which look good on a resume and that employers often care about. Like the online courses and such - few employers (I think?) put a lot of weight in those, especially relative to a decent college or university.

Forgive me if I missed something.

Why not? Are you saying you distrust the folks who were interviewed?

Did you read the article? If so, what then was your take on it?

[EDIT: um, also, I believe it is right and ethical to feel outrage about racism, so I appreciate journalism which points it out and discusses it. And; the article was a lot more nuanced than “driving outrage about racism.” That’s a pretty shallow interpretation - the article is clear about the complications of the kind of “outing” that occurred and shared multiple views about it. I think maybe your implication was that said racism does not exist in this case? Feel free to explain more about what you meant :)]

Without commenting on what was fair or not for that girl, what I took away from The NY Times article about it was just how much racism was blithely floating around the school and the community.

Yeah. Chasing a dream for what the dream means to him as a fantasy of himself rather than what his authentic wants and needs are.

Aaaaand none of that matters when it comes to getting a job, except, maybe, for certain areas of software development.

And yeah he prioritized avoiding debt the same way a hungry animal prioritizes avoiding starvation.

> I think this response and some others vastly underestimate the value and complexity of „unskilled“ or „menial“ work.

IMHO the parent poster is not talking about, let’s say the “inherent” value of such work, but the value our society places on it when it comes to money - aka when it comes to acquiring the basic necessities and securities of life and what it takes to live a decent life in the modern world.

Otherwise, I agree with your comment 100% and suspect several of the other posters do too.

In a democracy, isn’t having an educated citizenry enough of a return? Or at the very least a significant factor?

I’ll also throw in the idea (as an addition not a replacement to what you say) of national service in some form which isn’t military service (lots of ways to help the country beyond the military) and the government funding a university education to some degree in exchange for that.