entropi

>What exactly is wrong or dystopian here? AI bad? Cameras bad?

Well no, not by itself. The way I look at it, this is a precedence. It works, and there is not a lot of resistance. That's huge. And there will be next steps to this.

It doesn't take too many steps from here to a distopian surveillance state.

Personally, I just don't see the appeal.

A good game is quite immersive without needing any cumbersome goggles. I can't imagine a bad one being immersive with any sort of goggles.

To be fair, I think the same thing about fancy graphics as well; but people seem to love fancy graphics with 4k resolution and ray tracing or whatever the newest gimmick is.

In my opinion, the only significant effect of any graphics fancier than ps3 era is just increased costs, less finished/polished games, and the necessity to appeal to a wider audience.

I think about the same thing about the whole VR thing. If it becomes mainstream, I think there would be hardly any games that take advantage of it; and most of the games would just focus on the spectacle, which gets old extremely quickly.

Sure, some people say this is possible, but in my experience this is practically impossible.

Maybe that was a failure on my part; but I never was able to get it to work reliably. For a certain combination of versions of tools + some hacks, you can make it work. Then it breaks with the first update to any of those tools.

I think that while this is true, it does not matter at all. As a labourer, what you are getting paid for is not 'to understand' stuff, but actually 'to do' stuff. If an overgrown language model can 'do stuff'; I don't think it matters, at all, whether it understands anything or not. From the perspective of the company/user, it is intelligent.

This is just pure evil. The government so far was pretty much useless; and with this they are now actively preventing people from organizing themselves. A net negative, after years of paying taxes.

And probably the greatest contributor to this tragedy was the lack of oversight for construction codes and safety regulations in the first place.

1- Cause thousands of preventable deaths 2- dont even try to help 3- impede those who are trying to help. This is a new low, even for the president.

Hmmm. Not necessarily. I mean if what you did does not change the outcome in any way, then is what you did even evil? If you have no marginal impact, can you ever do good or evil? I am not sure actually.

I realize that this could also apply to lower rank soldiers involved in some war crimes, etc. so I guess it is not that clear cut. But would you blame a random soldier of lowest rank for carrying out terrible orders and not risking himself(or his family)? Well I don't know. I guess I would not.

Of course, the stakes are rarely that high, but the harm done is also rarely that high also.

> Basically prisoner's dilemma

> (...)In that case, defecting will be seen as justifiable.

Exactly! My argument basically boiled down to this. In certain situations, defecting may be the way to go. I would not blame the defector for doing what is in their best interest.

And “someone would have done this anyway” could very well be what's turning a situation into a prisoner's dilemma, so it could actually be a valid justification in some cases.

But yeah, it could depend on what is meant by "justification" exactly.

I actually don't agree with this. Assume that the following premises are true:

* action x is legal, but results in a worse world for everyone. * doing action x benefits the first 1000 people who do it. * much more than 1000 are capable of doing x, including me. * if I do it now, I will be one of the first 1000.

If these are true, I think one should do action x. I believe one would be completely justified in doing it.

The author is a single person. The parent comment implies a large portion of the women would prefer taller mates. The author being woman is not at odds with this claim.

I think this is down to the time horizons each kind of company optimizes for. Mittelstands are usually owned by families and they basically try to build a business that will feed the parents as well as kids when they come of age. Publicly listed companies usually optimize for this quarter. So even if you are looking at the same KPIs, you could get different outcomes just due to the utility functions being different.

> The reality is most huge companies are majority bloat.

This is true, and in my opinion, true for a reason. And that reason is not "most huge companies are dumb", as opposed to what Musk's cult seem to believe. The reality is, measuring what exactly is "bloat" and precisely cutting that bloat is extremely difficult and firing more than half of your workforce is probably like using a warhammer to do brain surgery.

This point is actually addressed in the introduction of the study.

> These checks notwithstanding, an obvious concern with our estimates is the endogeneity of the decision to appoint a business manager—perhaps firms turn to business managers when they need to cut labor costs. To bolster the argument that our results capture causal effects of business managers on wages and the labor share, we use two strategies. First, we obtain very similar estimates when we focus on manager retirements and deaths, which are arguably less endogenous than other switches from non-business to business managers. Second, we develop an instrumental variable (IV) strategy (...)

In my experience, quite a few libraries only worked when pulled from conda, due to the whole M1-compatible compilation thing. So while Apple does not force you to install conda, in practice you kind of are forced.

This is/has been changing slowly, though. Things are much better then they were a year ago.

These kind of conundrums easily disappear when you factor in housing(or healthcare). Labour is expensive, but housing is even more expensive. The delivery guy needs to pay their landlord before they can pay other delivery guys.

Code is not sentient, has no human rights, masters don't create slaves out of caffeine, etc. etc. This analogy does not hold at all in my opinion.

So, imagine x couples, each of whom has 3 kids in their lifetimes. In 80 years, there are now 3x/2 couples. In 160, there are 9x/4. There are now 11 billion people. Every 150 or so years, having 3 kids roughly doubles the population. (A better model would be a birth/death process with a #kids distribution with a mean 3 and death age with a mean 80, but not necessary to make my point, I think.)

This is exponantial growth.

Ok, but you realize this requires indefinite exponential growth, right?

I mean, it also feels weird to have to pay anyone just for.. making money through labor. Why owning something should be any different than making the money to buy it in the first place? If anything, taxing money as it is earned really hurts the potential compounding effect.

I am really curious where this whole situation with housing will end up.

I am 30 years old, lived in more than a few cities/countries now and since I was a child, the cost of rents/houses have always been increasing, literally everywhere.

At what point it is too much? What happens then?

Agreed with all your points, except for this one:

> b) will continue to bloom for the foreseeable future

I don't think this will be the case. True, it was/is a golden age, but I don't see how this demonstrably unsustainable machine can go on fore the "foreseeable future". Unless we get a huge breakthrough on the order of fusion, I don't see this golden age going on more than 50 or so more years.

I understand that math -in general- don't have much public appeal. But I don't think that exempts math-related articles from having titles which actually reflect their content.

"Mathematicians Make Sense of Chaos" is, in my opinion, the same as "Cancer Cured". Which cancer, at which stage, what method, on how many people, how, etc. etc. No matter how interesting the article (don't get me wrong, this IS a very interesting article) you are misdirecting the readers and that's not cool I think.

Are these titles getting worse everyday or is it just me? This is such a blatant clickbait that it makes me not want to click.

Yes, but I think it simply means the answer changes to "an unknown quantitity" when it comes to sweet sweet quarterly returns.

I think this makes sense.

However, I am sure there are many people who have lost money (or made much less) with reasonings that may be at least as sound as this one.

I thought about this too. The explanation I've reached is that when it comes to livestock, there is a certain amount of.. respect? going into the process. We are raising and exploiting cattle for thousands of years now, and every part of an animal is either directly consumed or used in other ways. Many cultures have elaborate rituals surrounding the slaughter, etc. This, I think, gives the impression of value to us.

But for these penguins, there is no respect (still not sure if this is the best word) to speak of. You just cut them into pieces and boil thousands of them in a steampot, then discard most of it. The oil you get is in small quantities and is not even of high quality. The animal is treated as a thing to be used up, without any value.

I am one the people you describe, and I am still sure it is a stupid idea. Worse ideas got more support from the public in the past, and I think this one needs more time to be seen.

On the other hand, a government-issued cryptocurrency that is entirely under government's control with no anonymity, is not stupid at all. And I think this will be the future of crypto. Not saying it is good, just saying it is inevitable.

My master's thesis work was on MD simulations. My setups had around 150k atoms each, and it took months and hundreds of cores to finish any meaningful simulation. I was incredibly jealous of that machine.

But frankly I am still not convinced of the usefulness of the MD studies except for a few cases (docking studies, etc.).