aeternum

It's somewhat entertaining to watch both sides argue about this as if it's some major difference when both are actually aligned on wanting bigger gov and more gov ownership/control of corps (one party via taxes the other wants it direct).

It has exploded, the explosion just isn't evenly distributed. And just as it was with the internet, most people and even most industries are not actually using it yet. Many that are are using it in name only.

People can star github repos and signup their employees for a new subscription quickly, real adoption takes far longer.

This is religion, not science.

Would the resources have been better spent on a more efficient legal system, then leverage that?

I would much rather see people keep more of their dollars and use them to 'vote' for the products and services that benefit them most, via their purchases.

We should aim for the long game. An insanely expensive one-time mission using disposable rockets to analyze rocks that we've already analyzed with rovers is probably not the best path.

Either deliver it under-budget or it should get cut. NASA has become more of a jobs program than a space program. Hopefully that changes.

That's a very modern concept. In the natural world they belong to whatever entity is able to take them.

Life has always been about grabbing as many macronutrients as you can by whatever means possible.

Why use the term extract rather than trade? Protection was quite valuable. Those peasants could have tried their luck planting a field in the middle of nowhere, far from any village. There was plenty of unused land.

They didn't because the peasant and their family would not last long.

This idea that civilization is somehow oppressive rather than a great achievement just doesn't make sense. Force is the natural way of things. Alone those peasants would likely have 100% of the harvest taken by force, whether it be by wild animals, roving bandits, even locusts. It's a far better deal to have some percentage of it taken in return for having it protected.

In nature, protection is the thing that matters.

It is the mechanism the LLMs use to do it. They seem to accel right now at quantity of work over quality of work. I'd be willing to wager there is a much simpler way to achieve the proof.

I've also seen this with code, LLMs do get the job done, but they tend to write 10-100x more code than humans to get the same job done. Still a massive value gain because they can write that much code extremely quickly.

Given the close relationship between compression and intelligence, I'm somewhat surprised at how poorly the cutting edge models do with being concise.

The majority of the problem is also simply the ability to record. Putting a remote control listening hardware on a device that runs a plethora of 3rd party apps and with full connection to the internet means that even if LG isn't controlling that mic, someone else will be.

Who killed the Neanderthals? Were sapiens actually smarter or were they just less accepting of those different than them?

Runway incursions and midair collisions are another example.

Only airliners are required to have TCAS, smaller planes and helicopters don't even need radios or transponders unless in certain airspace. Midair collisions do lead to fatalities, enormous fatalities if an airliner is involved.

Runway incursions and overruns are similar. They cause lots of fatalities and injuries but only the busiest and largest airports have automated systems to warn when a runway is occupied or end of runway (overrun) arrestor systems. Most still rely on human voice to deconflict.

Overall this seems like the right move, either they all are trusted or none.

The fact that even a small amount of discharged radiation can cause damage makes everything more expensive for those companies, not just design and certification of the reactor itself but also liability insurance.

Also why didn't you use shelter facilities, were they too crowded, unsafe, or had onerous rules?

This is rare but does suggest a possible effect where users realize this over time and switch.

Even during the early industrial revolution, notorious for poor working conditions, people overlook why there was such high demand for those shitty jobs. The reason is because people were literally starving in the countryside. A family's survival was dependent on a good harvest.