foltik

> they'll find a way to verify age by themselves.

Yeah, by outsourcing it to some shady company that sells all your private info to the lowest bidder. See Discord for example.

Antitrust enforcement.

Look at the macro data. The overall median wage for all American workers combined has also drastically lagged behind economic productivity since the 70s.

Clearly that's not a good proxy either then... even the article itself says:

> Ultimately, concerns over inequality should focus on differences within labor compensation rather than the split between labor and capital.

The main issues I can see are:

- This "labor share" includes multi-million dollar executive pay packages, so it's heavily skewed towards the 1%

- It also completely ignores unrealized capital gains and loans against them, which is how the ultra-wealthy actually fund their lifestyles tax-free, with a tiny income on paper

> 'Security' is clearly a pretense, as otherwise the demand would not have been restricted to 'foreign nationals'.

Given everything else this administration has done, you now decide to accept their stated intentions at face value?

> Elon is singular in his understanding of engineering and construction and large systems and marshaling resources;

Ahahaha. Just like when he marshaled resources to buy Twitter?

More like he just cracked the whip, and the actual smart people worked day and night to figure it out, or else they’re fired.

O-S-T-MUS-TIS-NT!!

Even the LLM bot accounts are struggling to find something interesting about this.

From a functionalist perspective, there is no “you” sitting in one body or another.

The experience of “you” is just your specific memories and world model, continuously updated with sensory input.

If another body “runs” the same exact pattern, that is you. Theres no link and nothing was transferred; the pattern of thoughts and memories is all “you” ever was.

Same as playing the same song on two different speakers. Nobody asks what links the song across them; it’s the same song wherever it’s played. You’re just a far more complicated pattern on a far more complicated speaker.

You might ask, “but why am I this pattern?” Because this is the specific pattern modeling itself from the inside in asking that question.

Definitely vibed microslop, the giveaway is the broken header and scrolling on mobile.

Good faith? All you’ve done in this thread is vaguepost and talk down to people who opened up about something they’re struggling with.

You said tech can’t fix human problems. I gave you examples. You dodged with something cryptic about mental health. al_borland said they’re helping a friend off these platforms and you told them “good luck fixing your own problem.” gf263 said they’ve been trying for ten years, and you said they’re “resistant to positive change, and that’s dangerous to me.” Here’s what you’re actually doing: reframing an ordinary struggle as a pathology someone’s in denial about, which puts you above them and turns their disagreement into “resistance.” It’s unfalsifiable. Any tool that works didn’t fix the real problem; anyone who pushes back isn’t ready yet. You’ve built a position where you can’t be wrong and everyone else needs help.

Do you actually want people to solve their problems, or do you just want to talk down to them and feel bigger? Ask yourself who really has the problem here.

Yes, please state your point if you have one.

> You can’t fix human problems with technology.

Yes you can.

Screen time limiters, nicotine patches, putting the cookies out of sight, all of these things empirically work better than willpower alone.

> No condescension - and if you’ve been trying for ten years, there’s clearly a misunderstanding.

Oh please. “Why are you depressed? Just be happy or you must not be ready for a change. No condescension btw.”

A study obviously can’t prove that people need jobs to be happy.

If you can so much as imagine a society organized around some other source of happiness, there’s your evidence by counterexample.

Indeed, I’m not sure what compels people to compare real regulatory systems from now or history to some imaginary free market where producers always act in their long-term interest and consumers always have perfect information.

Every functioning society on earth regulates food drugs and infrastructure. We lived through the unregulated version for centuries, and it took mountains of dead children and poisoned workers to win the rules we have now; tearing them down just means ordinary people will pay the price all over again.

Capture is a failure mode of every institution humans have ever built, including the courts we presumably still want. The answer is to design better institutions, not to get rid of them and hope things work out.

More like his mouth goes wherever the money is.

Obvious to the grads he’s yet another “visionary” corporate hack waxing to them about how they’d better not miss the AI rocket ship.

> a single phrase in an obscure three year old mailing list post

> I stand by every word I said in that thread

> Attestation isn't against being able to do whatever you want with your own device.

“Prison isn’t against being able to go wherever you want.”

> There are many changes that are possible which do not harm the integrity of applications.

“Well there’s a lot of places you can go in prison, you just can’t leave.”

Uh-huh.

> In the same way the user can't make their device have the Microsoft Word app send them $1 million from Microsoft's bank account.

This is completely incoherent. You and I both know that a bank refusing to give away someone else’s money has nothing to do with being able to run whatever code and operating systems we want to on our own devices.

Obviously the decision happens on some remote server which would require a username and password to authorize. It doesn’t matter one bit what piece of code sent it over.

Not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse, but a signing key means nothing by itself. What exactly do you think is being attested TO?

Thats right: that the user can’t do what they want with their own device. Obviously your key wouldn’t be trusted if they could.

There is no other conceivable purpose that attestation could serve.

Then you’re just replacing one DRM cartel with another.

What would even be the criteria for approval? Pinky promise to not let the end user have full control of their own device? That’s all “integrity” really means in practice. Don’t be fooled by appeals to security.

Have you tried the Uber webapp?

If a “category of claims” has shared causal structure, then the category’s track record absolutely does tell you something about the next claim in it.

It’s not arbitrary. Alien UFOs, Chem-Trails, and Flat Earth are obviously all generated from the same distribution of bullshit: ambiguous or misunderstood phenomena explained by positing a vast hidden conspiracy.

It may feel like you’re designing a bridge, but in reality you’re just asking a worker to do that too, and rubber stamping it when the drawings look reasonable.

One day you’ll be asked why it collapsed and realize you don’t actually understand it anymore.

Never used grok, never will.

Holy... that was quite the read.

It’s one specific low-level abstraction, which is well defined: the primitive building blocks a higher level abstraction is built on and oblivious to.

Zig’s comptime is the primitive. Sum types, generics, etc. are things you can build on top.

The original example is the type-level equivalent of looking at:

  int foo() {
    return 4;
  }

and saying “why do I need all this function and return ceremony when I can just write the number 4 verbatim?”

It’s precisely not syntactic ceremony. It’s normal Zig running at compile time in which you can program types as values. In Rust (and most other languages) all you get is a highly abstract DSL:

Foo<T> where for<‘a> T: Bar<‘a, baz(): Send>

Information dense, but every new feature needs language design work. Zig lets you express arbitrary logic, loops, conditionals, etc. It’s lower level of abstraction than a type constraints DSL.

For example, adding “the method in this trait is Send” to Rust’s DSL took a whole RFC and new syntax. The Zig equivalent could be implemented with an if statement on a type at comptime.

Or how about the transformation of an async function into a state machine. Years of work, deep compiler integration, no way to write such transforms yourself. Same with generators, which still aren’t stable. I’d really like to be able to write these things like any other program.

If you don’t want or need to express things at this lower level of abstraction, fair, same reason most people stick to scripting languages and don’t think about memory layout. But “extra ceremony” is really underselling it.

Low-level doesn’t mean more information, it means more explicit.

In Zig, that means being able to use the language itself to express type level computations. Instead of Rust’s an angle brackets and trait constraints and derive syntax. Or C++ templates.

Sure, it won’t beat a language with sugar for the exact thing you’re doing, but the whole point is that you’re a layer below the sugar and can do more.

Option<T> is trivial. But Tuple<N>? Parameterizing a struct by layout, AoS vs SoA? Compile time state machines? Parser generators? Serialization? These are likely where Zig would shine compared to the others.

So there are variable names, they’re just inscrutable context dependent numbers.

Didn’t say that. The friends in question clearly think it is. My point more generally was about people who publicly talk about $X being society-destroying while materially enabling $X for a paycheck.