brycesbeard

Your comment is in violation of HN guidelines.

All I saw is a marketing piece designed to tell me about the product line of a company I’d never heard of. No context as to things I could relate to, mostly just information and excitement about this prefect platform.

Outside of prefects products and features, what is the information you took away from this article that made it worth your time?

I was in a public school district that made public the funding received by each school. Because it was a large metro district, we had wealthy areas and impoverished ones.

The schools in worse areas were getting about 30% more money from the district, per student, than the wealthier ones. This was to balance out the superior amount of parental funding in the richer neighborhoods.

What’s the context for this? Seems like it’s a marketing piece to get people to sign up for their fake scarcity early access program.

Very little interesting in the article.

It means I don’t see renewables getting us to a point where people can consume 100x the energy they currently do. Fusion could get us there.

OOM increases in energy tend to correspond with huge improvements in quality of life. I don’t see renewables getting ya there.

It’s such an interesting debate, because while I think we have solved the technological safety issues (which is what us engineers think of), we have not solved the human issues.

I’m reading Midnight in Chernobyl, and while the reactor design was flawed, the problem was created and compounded by just how stupid us humans actually are. Things like the builders not being able to get quality cement, for example - is that a technical problem or a human one?

FWIW, I am pro nuclear. The problem w renewables is they are focused on meeting current energy demand. But growth is based on innovation which is tied with energy use.

In other words, what could we accomplish if we could consume 100x our current amount of energy (with the caveats of clean energy and safety)?

I don’t think renewables are going to get us there.

A third option - raising capital from a public market may be cheaper holistically. Perhaps the private money is heavy into competition, and you’re worries about onerous terms.

I’m sure we could think of other options if we tried really hard.

Plus you get people are less interested in “work life balance”, and generally don’t have as high of salary expectations.

I’ve been involved in hiring decisions where HR brought up the healthcare costs to complain, then stated clearly we can’t use that as a criteria for hiring.

I have doubts that human brains can separate out that kind of statement from our actions.

the relevant question is whether it influences on a scale we want to stop. Treating it as a binary isn’t very useful.

Which is a very different question than whether or not it worked. After all, people pay billions every year on useless nutritional supplements which have a lot of evidence to suggest they don’t work as people think.

Yet they still pay. People are irrational.

Strongly disagree. If they were all combined, we would likely have the same level as any given Company’s progress, but no more due to the mythical man month factor.

Instead we have multiple moonshots, bringing diverse approaches, and constrained by a budget. Since we know from Apollo that “if money were no object”, we can do this, it’s a good approach.

The reason we never moved on from Apollo is because economics matter. We were able to beat the tyranny of the rocket equation; now we are seeing if we can do it for a much smaller amount. And we have multiple bets on different approaches.

Maybe you actually like heavy metal but won’t admit it to yourself ;).

(Just kidding, but this kind of thing will be more common in the future, especially as we learn more about how little the brain knows about its own desires and motivations)

What’s interesting is that these algos are trained on human feedback. What does that say about our revealed preferences in music?

Or they realize the problem isn’t fixed if they give away their money. It’s structural — why give up what you’ve gotten if it won’t fix anything?

IMO, calling for higher taxes is the same thing to do, rather than performing some sort of empty virtue signaling.

So it’s fear of the unknown? I’m genuinely curious why people are so bothered by this. I don’t use Facebook, and use privacy extensions to prevent my agents from using Facebook. It’s like they’re a non existent entity in my world.

I simply can’t prioritize caring about something that doesn’t appear to impact my life in any way. But I’m admittedly not much of a principalled-living person. Too much internal hypocrisy for me to pretend to be principled.

They’re bits about you, but what makes you think you own them?

I’d say it’s the revealed preferences of FB users that decide which content to surface. Facebooks algorithms are just enabling that.

At what point do we accept that polarization (in a tribal sense) is a featurebug in human psychology? Maybe fb is just giving us what we want.

If you quit using Facebook, what does it matter if they have some bits about you?