foinker

We're focusing on the waymo because it did this on its own for some inscrutable reason and there is no individual accountability, which is a far more useful discussion to be having if we are supposed to trust these things to be replacing humans on the road. The humans behavior is only relevant in the sense that now all humans on the road have an additional hazard to factor in: errant waymos that you can't gesture to or yell at or honk at or make any attempt to understand their intentions.

Does it? I mean the quoted text doesn't really make much mention beyond the word "allegations" that there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing on Joe Biden's part. In fact, it's written as if there is still some question of validity. Grok is a rhetorical device that tries to paint right-wing reaction to woke stuff as an honest concern for journalistic integrity. If it were really being honest, why is it so often just a blatant point by point contradiction of whatever the wikipedia article says in all these culture war matters?

Reddit was back by the time work started, so all good there lol

No shot that happens until an outage breaks at least an entire workday in the US timezones. The only complaint I personally heard was from someone who couldn't load reddit on the train to work.

Work is a means to an end of living an enjoyable life, and most tech/finance jobs in the US are overpaid, unimportant nonsense.

Seriously? Governments' legitimacy is pinned to their ability to provide food and medical attention to their citizenry. It doesn't make any difference whether or not twitter exists or who has access to it.

I think we should all just accept that these platforms are not suitable for the purposes of being a global bulletin board/library of human activity as long as they are owned and operated by private corporations who only care about your inviolable rights to speak freely when it suits them. There are other ways besides twitter to see what Zelensky says.

CEOs, VCs, and other managers do not give one flying fuck about talented people leaving. When talented people leave, they're replaced with cheaper people who can do decent enough work that the quality of the end product doesn't noticeably suffer. Come to think of it, they also don't really give a fuck if the quality of the end product suffers.

The artificial force is almost always VC funding

Not the person you asked, but sometimes I ask things I can easily Google because we are on a discussion board discussing it, and a human can sometimes come up with an interesting answer that generates further discussion. I'm more confident in that than I am cobbling the info together from scanning 5 "best grayscale app" listicles.

I consider myself a Musk detester, and you're definitely right that all those calls for Twitter/X's death were wishful thinking at best. But I don't think that these supposed new features have anything to do with the continued use of the site (stability being solid is the baseline expectation so congrats I guess?) Lot's of people deleted their accounts forever in the past 2 years and were replaced with crypto shills, bots, and propagandists (it's all the same to Musk). Everyone else stayed because of inertia.

The site will continue to be one of the most popular in the world largely because people don't want to "redo Twitter" on a new website. It really doesn't matter what Musk does.

I have a complicated relationship with this situation. On the one hand, just tell me what you want. On the other hand, if you feel rude go ahead and send me a hello first. But on the other other hand it distracts me until you say what you want. But on the other other other hand if I'm doing something else I shouldn't be stopping to check my chats which are necessarily not urgent. But on the other other other other hand what if it is urgent? So then I check it and it just says "Hello". And I can see them typing so I wait 3 or 4 minutes. And then they stop and the typing bubbles go away, so I go back to what I was doing and then they finally send their question: "How are you?"

Yes, it's going to excel at understanding programming languages, which have rigid structures and clearly defined commands whose inputs and outputs could never be misunderstood by a computer. And more power to ya if it saves developers a bunch of time, but it's being built and hyped as something that can do everything for everyone, which it very clearly can't. It has already pushed the customer service industry into a far, far more irritating direction, for example.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the premise that work should be mostly transactional and there should be no expectation of loyalty, but the spirit of the other guy's example is that your coworkers, the other human beings who work there and have to interact with you, will find it offputting if you are aggressively transactional with them about everything all the time.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I think your wrench analogy only really works if the wrench sometimes thinks it is a screwdriver or a piece of wood for the majority of users, and only experienced highly technical mechanics can consistently guide it to remembering that it is a wrench.

The problem is that the toothpaste is already out of the tube in terms of what it's been hyped to be for the average person, and they are disappointed to learn that it doesn't really work that way. And there are many people who have not yet realized, or realized too late, that it's not appropriate for the work they're doing and its "assistance" is ending up in finished products in any case.

>Automation is not in service of the owning class, it's in service of the consumer class

The primary beneficiary is the guy that can sell 2000 shirts instead of just 100. Anything that makes it easier for you to buy shit is not for your benefit. They are hoping you buy it because they've made it so easy for you to buy it, so just buy it! And I promise you they are not forwarding any of the profits from the additional output to their remaining laborers.

A monopoly was developed because it's easier, and I'm sure that's why there isn't anywhere in the developed world that successfully made use of multiple currencies, or private printing of the dominant currency. For example, the American colonies operated without standards for the first few decades and it was a huge pain in the ass for everyone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_American_currency

Sure I will bolster my argument, here's the tl;dr: I'm not required to propose an alternative to bitcoin, that isn't what this is about. As a regular joe consumer, I find that bitcoin is a disgracefully inadequate alternative to fiat that solves none of the problems it alleges to try to solve and makes many of them worse.

I didn't say anything about the status quo, I said specifically that bitcoin is a scam and the concrete part of that statement is how after 15 years of allegedly "trying" to make it work, the only thing anyone has successfully managed to use it for is speculating on its own future value, rugpulls and other flavors of scam artistry, and enabling terrorist groups and drug cartels. Most bitcoin darlings either end up in prison or cash out and disappear forever. The high profile personalities within the space have shown time and time again that they are nothing but charlatans. I'm sure I don't need to provide you with specific proof of this, articles about these people are literally everywhere. Ignoring what people have actually been using it for, the onus of proof is on YOU to tell ME why in the fuck we should use THIS system:

-difficult for the layperson to understand

-inaccessible to people without internet access

-transactions take so long that the value of the coin can change dramatically by the time it actually happens

-requires the user to accept total liability for the data points which represent their entire identity in the economic system. i do not want to tattoo one half of my key onto my balls and bury the other half on a hard drive in the backyard so my money doesn't get stolen.

-no concept of ownership and therefore no concept of theft

-no consumer protections. if your wallet (ie your identity) is stolen, there is absolutely nothing you can do, because you have no identity in this system.

-"no central authority" is a BAD thing because there is no price control mechanism. with fiat, there are controls in place for a loaf of bread to not cost $10000 and there are people who can be held accountable if this ever happens.

-"no central authority" is a MYTH, the price and supply of bitcoin are de facto controlled by a small number of anonymous whales and miners with the resources to buy thousands of GPUs and quickly stand up mining operations in countries with cheap energy.

-the compute work is 99.9999999% wasted so all the energy they suck up in these mining operations amounts to fuck all.

-if you croak, your money is lost to the ether. Millions of people die every day, so every day the money supply shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. i can imagine that in a few hundred years there will be like 12 bitcoin left and the price of a loaf of bread will be .000000000000013542 bitcoin even though it was .000000000000012732 just yesterday. You might be tempted to say well we'll just move the decimal around, but who will? Who has the authority?

These issues cannot be blamed on external factors, they are baked straight into the design of the system. It is not enough to say that "fiat money is the problem so let's make a different currency". The problem is that it's possible for some people to exploit economic systems to accumulate wealth beyond what is reasonable for a person to live, which in turn makes it impossible for many others to accumulate enough wealth to escape poverty. There is no software nor economic system that can answer for this, it's just human behavior. Once a system is put into place, people begin to work to exploit it, and bitcoin is laughably easy for people with enough resources to exploit. In this regard it is a spectacular failure.

I am firmly in the tech bubble and think AI is a novelty in its present state. ChatGPT is a fucking idiot. That said, so is everyone who thinks cryptobros are "trying to fix money". They're trying to fix the problem of themselves not having your money yet.

It's true that many many places overextended themselves while under the influence of ZIRP. However, I think it's giving the execs/boards too much credit to say they're reluctant to do layoffs because the tech isn't there yet. Everyone is eager to get on the AI train because they want to pay fewer employees.

As a childless person I agree entirely. I fully acknowledge and embrace that I don't have kids because I'd rather not deal with the hassle of it.

Although I've not fully understood what makes that decision "selfish" in the sense that I'm not acting in a way that is a detriment to others.

It was a pretty horny game, no question, but I think when people say BG3 has a great story, they mean that the combination of non-linear story, huge cast of oddball characters, lively and interesting settings, little side story beats sprinkled around which makes your playthrough a little different from your friends, vocal performances, mood, animation, sound design and the actual gameplay mechanics all came together into an experience that people really really connected with. It doesn't have to be Kubrick, but I think the author's point is that narrative AAA games disproportionately suffer from bad writing which harms the perception of the games' overall quality, and that writing is actually a worthwhile investment.

Yes the writing is often an afterthought and besides the point, but most of the games people are listing here are kind of proving the author's point, especially BG3. Games with great stories sell better and have a longer shelf life than games with bad stories, so there's no reason not to invest in quality writing. Look at what's happening with Starfield.

You are thinking of the highly regarded tl;dr

The allure of short term profits is largely the point of all companies. Google in particular was never decent, they struck data harvesting gold with Search and Maps, then used the infinite money they were making off of advertisers to ensure that no other option besides Google could ever be viable, through manipulation of search results, manipulation of business customers, regulatory capture, etc. Now they are free to let the quality of their products slide into the abyss without fear of users jumping ship. Where would we jump to? This is what every tech company you've ever heard of has been striving to do for a couple of decades now. It's either that or create hype -> pump valuation -> sell the business to a larger entity before they have to answer for long-term stability.

The event is the attempt at the promotion. That the outcome was failure doesn't make it a 'non-event', and I think this is what the study is kind of getting at. Men mentally reconfigure these things into ways that protect our ego and/or status, whether we realize we're doing it or not. Maybe they chose that one over yours because getting fired is too difficult to not disclose. Your friends and dependents would certainly notice you've stopped going to work lol

I'm sure you understand it perfectly as it's been commonly used this way for a couple of centuries now.