dreambuffer

1. We're not talking about the same kinds of repetition. Repetition as a tool within a single artwork is not the same thing as widespread imitation across artworks.

2. Audial preferences are not the same thing as visual preferences, they're different parts of the brain.

There are styles which are timelessly bad and then there are styles which are only "bad" because they are overused. That's not the fault of the style, it was good style, that's why it became overused. The problem is us. We have a natural aversion to repetitive things, and I wouldn't call that contrarianism.

But this looks really good. Great contrast, simple and quiet, background image does not take up the whole page, the only thing really wrong is the animations. It's proof that slop can be turned into gems by someone with an eye for it.

It's fine, but if you spent hours telling it what not to do, at that point you are the one doing the designing.

I said new-age products are an exception, the bar was opened in 2005. It also kind of proves my point, once Western culture ingratiated itself into Japan the art culture got a bit worse.

You just don't know what it's like to live in a place where art and culture is truly valued. Take Japan, for a relevant example. Many things in japan are given an extra small twist to aesthetically elevate them. The food looks a little prettier, their packages are just a bit neater, their technology is cute, they put little doodles on everything, aside from new-age products or architecture everything has a little bit of personal touch and care. This is because there is some tradition of taking pride in small details and not reaching for the most obvious solution.

A society that values culture is taking the extra 3 minutes to think of or look up some Japanese iconography that would make the poster a bit more interesting than a sakura even if brainless "average" people cannot figure out how it is relevant to Japan, the hope being that all of us learn and appreciate these things a bit more.

But that is the criticism being made, that if you must supply the originality, the AI is not very intelligent.

The CIA hires "actual" artists, all the time and in great numbers. They have a creative writing division.

The logistics required to win intercontinental wars against a reasonably large and well-defended country are simply beyond human organisational capabilities and it's only getting harder as defence gets better and easier, and the world becomes more interconnected.

Israel have Monkey's Pawed themselves. They wanted Trump to win because they knew he would be malleable to start a war in Iran. But he's also Trump, which means every decision he makes comes with a big asterisk.

She's not wrong at all about her rhetorical implication (being, some information requires more than simple systems can provide), but she has concluded incorrectly that a car which does not know how to avoid a busy route is useless technology, or that the problem can only be solved by inventing life.

Well, yes, because the US government has staked the future of the country's GDP on AI. They're even divesting from science as a whole and putting it into data centers.

There's a cognitive dissonance on this site where everyone claims to hate this attempt at regulatory capture, yet they would do it too if it was their tech company and call it a "moat", and many are actively working towards that.

You don't have to be self-employed to have skin in the game, that's ridiculous.

How many op ed writers have tried to have skin in the game at all? How many of them produce writing which is actually high quality and not just concern trolling about China or what have you?

Taleb made a lot of money trading, his firm failed but running a successful business is not trivial and his ideas ended up working when he took up an advisory role rather than an executive role. Unlike other financial "influencers", he actually seems to understand mathematics to a high degree.

Hardly your typical economist op ed writer.

I will do this work for substantially less money, $200 per week.

Contact me agngel@proton.me

Porkbun is an interesting case study for this support model. They reply to everything personally, and for me the important thing is not that I'm talking to a human, but that I'm not hearing corporatespeak.

I would even be happy to talk to a bot if it was fine-tuned to speak like a regular person instead of a corporate drone.

You know Palantir is not an LLM company, right? Their core product is just data integration systems.

There likely isn't a Canadian Alex Karp. Karp is a unique byproduct of American culture. The specific brand of arrogance, hunger for war, and callous disregard for human life, all in service of a right wing ideological project, is simply not as present in Canada because Canada is a middle power with more liberal values who prefer diplomacy over war.

We barely have a space industry, how are we meant to compete with starlink? We need foreign investment. We also need protections against foreign investment. We also need to uplift south africans left behind by apartheid. That is the purpose of the law.

You are just wrong, the law says the local partner must be economically productive, and starlink is allowed to choose them, so if they don't contribute to starlink's business, that is starlink's fault. This is now the second time I have told you this, so you are wilfully misunderstanding me. Conversation over.

Although your claim is literally untrue as the grid has been upgraded, the answer is: mostly the apartheid government. They left the ANC with a grid that served only 10% of the population, which makes it very difficult to upgrade, especially in a country with rampant poverty leading to cable theft, corruption, and general lack of infrastructure.

You can easily look up the lies he has made about white genocide, which even white south africans have debunked.

You accuse me of deception for arguing that, in a democracy, the law must be written by averages and not by a few individuals who want starlink. Ok.

I'm only addressing those points because you're showing some signals of bad faith conversation and general meanness so I don't want to respond to anything until I know you are good faith.

You are at this point purposefully trying to misunderstand me so you can let out your anger. Conversation is over, sorry.

No you misunderstand severely, some risks are unavoidable and unknowable. You need a telecommunications industry, you can't just eliminate all risks associated with it. So instead you make them pay a kind of insurance to operate in it, just in case the leader of the country you're allowing in one day decides to target your country (sound familiar?).

Of course, another goal is just to empower previously disenfranchised groups and contribute to the economy of South Africa.

Black people decide every few years by voting for representatives who uphold these policies. There has never been a motion supported by the majority of black south africans to get rid of B-BBEE, only foreign people like you seem to have a problem with it and that is because you don't understand what it is trying to do and you (probably) hate the idea of reparations for apartheid. Or at the very least you support aggressive pro-market policies that south africans do not want.

Additionally, the owner of Starlink hates South Africa (I never said black south africans, but you know), because he has spread lies about genocide occurring here.

Again, I never said it was zero sum, but thanks for being condescending. I said it was close to zero sum. Black south africans may get some jobs, maybe some internet, but the profit entirely goes to foreign entities and white south africans (in a theoretical model).

The law's intent was never to be racist, and while outcomes vary, the effect does not actually harm white south africans on average. So both the intent and the effect is non-racist.

Economic opportunity for black south africans is close to zero sum when all the profit goes to a foreign entity and white south africans.

Separately, kneecapping starlink does a lot for our country by preventing a man who hates us from abusing our laws and spying on our citizens.

It hedges national security risk by having 30% of the profits stay within South Africa, so that if the foreign company decides to use their company to, say, spy on South Africans, they at least have to fund our key industries to do so. That is why B-BBEE applies to Telecomms and other key industries.

Why don't you guys ever acknowledge that the law is an attempt to correct the racism of the apartheid government by distributing economic opportunities to those who never had them?

No, that had nothing to do with B-BBEE abuse.

It is easy to export electricity when you only need to serve 10% of the population.