aisengard

It's like everyone forgot that "lines of code" as a productivity metric was a running joke for a decade-plus. The real bottleneck in our work isn't producing boilerplate code, it's producing more or less the right kind of code for the problem at hand, and LLMs, having no real underlying ability to reason, are just not very good at it.

It's almost like an emergent feature of a tool that's literally built on best guesses is...guesswork. Not what you want out of a tool that's supposed to be replacing professionals!

That's the thing - we already know that each given interest group has common interests. That's how you build coalitions, by finding those common interests and tamping down on the differences. The problem with the youth vote that we know, is that if we cater to anyone other than them, or god forbid have any opinion they disagree with, they get disillusioned or even outright hostile (very much to their own detriment), for reasons I speculated on above.

So it's better to treat them as a totally unreliable voting bloc that is nice to have, but in no way should be treated special. They are fickle, impossible to corral, and make particularly awful coalition partners.

Bernie, for one, would have done well to use their energy to launch, as he did, but then switch to broadening his coalition, rather than doubling down on catering to their every whim and attempted browbeating. That rigidity and tunnel vision is what sunk him, and is what would have led to total electoral collapse if he had somehow made it to the nomination.

The lesson is that making your sole priority driving youth turnout is a losing strategy, for reasons that are not that confusing. The Bernie lamenters would do well to learn lessons from his failures, rather than blaming everyone else.

Gonna have to force-feed them enough pizza, maybe tricking them that it's causing the other three great pains to give it to them. Fortunately, it's been shown that these people are very easily tricked.

I mean, they tried that in the primaries and young people still stayed home. If they actually came out in force for Bernie like you said they would, he would have won every primary. Young people simply don't vote because of a lot of different reasons. Probably some of the reasons are immaturity and a lack of belief that they have agency, which is understandable given how society works in the US. You have basically zero rights until you turn 18, at which point you are magically able to vote! Do you believe you have the ability to affect the world at that point? Of course not.

"Put up candidates that don't suck" in this context is basically "put up candidates who will cater to young voters at the expense of literally every other constituency", which is exactly the reason Bernie lost in 2016, and lost even harder in 2020. You can't focus only on one group of people, even if that's the only way to drive their turnout. It's just a losing game, clearly not one worth playing with a group of people who don't yet understand that other people exist, with other priorities.

I feel like you shouldn't get to criticize protests for not being violent enough if you're not already performing sufficiently-violent protests. "Firebombing a Walmart" meme really is evergreen.

Well, some people can win. Other people will simply die of massive blood loss. As long as it's not you, right?

Don't you know, this is a vibes-based economy now? Numbers are meaningless when compared to feelings.

There is zero guarantee that these tools will continue to be there. Those of us who are skeptical of the value of the tools may find them somewhat useful, but are quite wary of ripping up the workflows we've built for ourselves over decade(s)(+) in favor of something that might be 10-20% more useful, but could be taken away or charged greater fees or literally collapse in functionality at any moment, leaving us suddenly crippled. I'll keep the thing I know works, I know will always be there (because it's open source, etc), even if it means I'm slightly less productive over the next X amount of time otherwise.

As opposed to the implication that Robinson is somehow a leftwing activist, confidently claimed by every GOP politician from coast to coast?

Also, even if it were, as you say, "misinformation", that is now somehow taboo on television? A sacred line none must dare cross?

You literally only had to read one more sentence:

"With Monday’s announcement universal child care will be extended to every family in the state, regardless of income. This amounts to an average annual family savings of $12,000 per child."

Maybe a comet?

Or, you know, we can do both at the same time?

Also, once police are no longer occupied ticketing motorists, I hope cyclists are prepared for actually being held accountable to laws. The police budget isn't going to refill itself.

Of course, this is not really a useful (or provable) criticism as long as the actual obstructionists are obstructing! Much more useful to oust the obstructionists, then you can work on holding the alleged lip-servicers accountable.

Yeah, the horrible pay in private school is proof enough that the "free" market is the absolute wrong way to go if you want better teachers.

Well, if you get to teach a lot of well-off kids who have a lot of extra support at home and you can siphon off the undesirables onto others, you get good marks when most of them inevitably "succeed".

If you have to teach the kids who need help, you get poor marks when some of them inevitably fail.

Here's a good way to think about it - there is no world where education improves if teachers are not a well-paid profession. It's a race to the bottom, as we're seeing today. So if you want to get better, you have to create incentives for otherwise smart/talented teachers to enter the profession, rather than other professions. The only way to do that is to provide some base level of pay that would be enticing. Once you clear that bar, then you work on things that are unique to the profession, like protecting teachers from abusive parents.

If you don't care about education and you just want to extract the most money from parents for the least amount of effort, you do nothing and let the market take over.

We price in externalities all the time. A lot of the time it's priced in as the cost of complying with government regulation, like food safety and labeling. Other times it's priced in the other direction, like subsidies for green energy or particular crops (corn/ethanol). We just don't necessarily price them appropriately, or in a way that some people may think is accurate, but we certainly don't ignore the concept of externalities.

The only thing that burned up in the atmosphere for the Space Shuttle program was the fuel tank. All the other components, including the booster rockets, were recovered and refurbished for reuse.

The innovation here isn't about reusability at all, it's about the economics of reuse. Maybe landing a rocket back on the pad rather than recovering them from the ocean makes it cheaper to reuse, has there been a study around that?

Actually, mere mortals pay tax eventually when they cash out their investments to pay for the things they want. The wealthy get to take low-interest loans against their investments to pay for the things that they want, without ever having to cash out. They never have to pay those taxes, and their inheritors don't either due to the truly insane cost basis step-up benefit you get when assets are transferred to next of kin upon death.

Pretty sure he already has: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/10/elon-musk-tells-twitter-staf...

Doing literally nothing would have already led to a better outcome than whatever waves hands this is.

I know this is a troll, but I'll respond anyway. If someone can prove he's discriminating against institutions on the basis of religion, he can be sued. Whether he takes money from the government or not doesn't matter in the slightest.

>>> “let’s avoid abortion, if we can”

>>> I see little argument to allow abortion in a logical sense

This is akin to saying "let's avoid major surgery, if we can", and then arguing that this leads to the logical conclusion that major surgery should be outlawed.

Sure, maybe in tech, which had been in an unsustainable bubble for a long time. But unless everything changed in the last few weeks, we haven't seen this in the overall labor market, which remains as hot and labor-friendly as ever. Only interest rate bumps will put a dent into this unprecedentedly strong labor market.

This has nothing to do with WFH, and more to do with how conditioned we are to rely on offices and employers to give us direction in life. It's like when you graduate high school and go to college, no one is going to proactively check in on you. It's a necessary adjustment we should all make at some point.

Factories don't shut down on the weekends, they just have different groups of people come in for different shifts. A 4-day work week would just mean that they have to hire more people to fill the hours. Productivity wouldn't fall, unless they wanted it to fall.

And then you would promptly get run over because your voice is not nearly loud/attention-grabbing enough.

> So a crisis was invented.

Are you saying that the millions upon millions who died (not to mention the untold millions who are suffering long-term health problems), didn't actually die? Or that what they died from (a highly contagious and infectious novel virus) was engineered?