IMHO, the only solution is a fairly complicated decentralized structure with economic incentives for all.
868 karma · joined April 25, 2015
Pro-tip to HackerNews (emailed when commented on; not mine): http://www.hnreplies.com
Current past-time: Certifications (electrical and cad tools) and Masters program (at my leisure).
Previous hobbies: DIY car repair, Handyman work
BTC: 17z2QWMByv5NHnMMg4VFwspJeL63Hn3Dm2
IMHO because decent regulations say so. AT&T has to comply with splitting up but did AT&T go extinct? Even though the situation isn't explicitly the same, the concept that government regulations are changing the market and it's direct effects are fairly similar. In the case above, Ericsson and Nokia are players that the government want to see exist in the market but for this specific aspect of the industry, they want to see a reduced role.
IMHO, it's government trying to work better on a very important topic (for the nation, for the people, and for the global market place [more competition for Huawei).
Yeah. I ran out of ink.
Hmm. My opinion is that dealing with free agents is difficult and governments don't have enough tools to encourage a free society to act in their best interests (let alone society's). Especially when there are numerous bad actors that have a lot of power.
I'll second this. I'm on the path at spending about $20 per month for fairly clean water and $20 a month for the air. I haven't solved the food contamination problem as I didn't have my sights on it but I'll include it now (I have been trying to cook at home more over the past two years, so maybe I've been taking baby steps here without realizing it).
As for the government, re:regulation, I'm trying to shy away from the politics because (at least for America) it's burdened down by identity politics instead of policy focused discussions.
As for me and my house, we're doing our part to bare the costs of personal responsibility.
To elaborate my point, through government subsidies: - American has seen massive production of food (so much that we waste an insane amount every year) - Massive creation with minimal resources (via petrol innovation; even if y'all don't like it, it was an easy win for society and we're living with the second order effects) - Vehicle fuel efficient rise - Green revolution is almost profitable without government subsidies.
I'm not an economist but the game theory does seem to playout in such a way, for the past century, to confirm 'we'll find a way, given a nudge in the right direction'.
Yes. I acknowledge the nay-sayers and the history of them on this topic
But to your point of ML being a solution. Honestly, I have a difficult time seeing how ML will give the manufacturing engineers enough tangible/actionable steps to take to make this happen. We need a new physical framework to be able implement an engineered solution. But maybe it's like eating an elephant (one bite at a time).
I will concede this though. IF it were to happen, ML will most likely bring it about. I appreciate you optimism grounded in the technology.
I watched a bunch of Jim Keller's interviews and I just fundamentally disagree with ~'we'll innovate our way out of it'.
I'll say this to the general sentiment. My 9th grade chemistry teacher say 'your generation will face two major problems: xxxxxx and water'[1]. He's been a sage in my life, retired for about 1.5 decades.
I say all this to attempt to say that 'this is refreshing' that this community understands that we are in an impending crisis of water. Onward! :)
[1] - I'm a millennium and I won't reveal 'xxxx' because I'm not trying to incite anger but he was correct about 'xxx'.
Contrary to many popular technological opinions, Moore's Law will be dead for a while. We're nearly at our physical limits. When this is ceiling is hit, we'll start seeing numerous more competition enter the fray. This is because the research part will be too large for one company to innovate itself out of (TSMC will be the first to hit the ceiling and the competition will reach the same ceiling in a short time. Together, they may advance our scientific understanding but I think governments would need to get aggressively involved). This is afundamental scientific limitation. There is no emerging research that will overcome this problem (zero theoretical research that can be used for engineering the manufacturing needed for the next advancements).
3D transistors are next but that's not growth at an exponential curve. We're looking at a linear growth future for a while.
P.S. I'm 33 and I expect within the next 6-15 years that we'll hit this limit and be at this limit for most of my working career unless we start seeing some seriously massive investment to unearth more advanced physics that we can implement at the pico-level. If you disagree, I'd love to hear what you think that will allow Moore to continue because I've read numerous studies and essentially all have zero tangible implementations.
This isn't true. Check out the margins of TSMC, it tends to be 40% or so.
But to maintain this lead in the industry, they need to massively reinvest for the next smaller process. With that said, profits are great but they don't endure (software development is somewhat more 'sticky' especially since everyone is doing SaaS which provides more incentives for competition and many companies are growing even with covid19 changing the market landscape).
American society tends to not like riots. 'Moral purity' doesn't justify physical wrath and destruction [1]. The collective society tends to benefit with using our Republic government as an instrument of recourse/change.
Using a small microcosm to judge any movement is a psyop by someone trying to reduce your critical thinking skills. Please figure out how to understand the grievances of 'the other side' because it's blinding you to a destructive discourse environment. Dare I say 80% of Americans would actually enjoy many 'other' people, if they were open and less hostile that mutes any chance to fixing mutually agreed upon problems.
[1] - I understand I'm opening myself to many historical counter arguments. But please understand that today isn't the 1850s. Nor the 1960s...etc.
I was in Florida (mostly GOP ran) and they had similar training. These policies (to not be attached) sounds very wrong, especially when numerous studies support attachment parenting as the best way to nurture child development.
Let's focus on the a mutually agreed problem (shit training) and work towards a better solution through better policies that either experiment with attachment or outright support it.
I currently have three bio-kids. The wife and I have been talking about fostering or running an orphanage. Hmmm. I've never really considered how much it would benefit the foster children to experience a healthy home.
I was told by my Aunt that fostering kids that they weren't supposed to 'get attached' but I never realized this as apart of the process b/c she always broke the rule, lol.
Caring and attachment is extremely important. IMHO, this training (to not grow attached) is the source of the problem. There is numerous research studies about the importance of healthy attachment to nurture the development of a human into the next stage of their life.
I'm an independent. I like some of the ideas of the Right that they believe that States are governments to experiment with. I'd suggest FPTP and other solutions to just attempt to do this locally and in a State or two. It will get traction, if it's worth it to the governed population. That's my suggestion, start small.
I disagree. If you notice with American politics both sides believe in strong dogmas. There is no middle ground.
They both have made their beds and they will lay in it.
Corporate Dems (control the Democratic Party) and the MAGA (control the GOP) have their own ecochambers. MSNBC, CNN, etc indoctrinate the Dems. Talk radio for the GOP.
The two cults will continue to clash. I wonder if the people will wake up.
The founding fathers(FF) knew this. The FF created a system of government that acts as a society consciousness. Allowing for passion (the House) but having frontal lobe mechanisms (the Senate guards against the mob mentality).
The recent insurrection happened specifically because of the laziness/apathy/intentional (take your pick, I'm certain one is true) of the Congress. It was their job to protect DC and with a rally on the same day nonetheless, yet the law enforcement was gravely lacking. Also the DC mayor and even the POTUS, yet none took the responsibility.
As for Parler, they acted like little children. Whining and not doing much. They attack a hornet's nest then cry when they get stung. They should've been prepared instead of telling Tucker Carlson's audience their entire system of weaknesses.
Peter Kolmisoppi, one of The Pirate Bay co-founders, criticized their behavior as well [1]. (Not being prepared, whining, etc)
Society is starkly divided between the rural and urban elites. There will always be bad eggs. BLM/Qanon are equally screwed up. But the kicker is two major things. We need better discourse and more civic engagement. No change will happen without our engagement (for either side).
Ultimately, I welcome the fourth turning.
As scripture says, 'Faithful are the wounds of a friend'. Sometimes the best thing we need is a little vinegar that is in our actual/tangible/observable best interest.
@dick said recently in an interview that these are geo-political decisions. That they might've did the calculus of losing advertising money but it's not the predominate reason [1].
[1] - I can't find this source. I find it weird that I can't search my history to find it. It was in an interview with either Bloomberg or WSJ.
P.S. The interview was in relation to Trump being banned but I think his response applies to Sci_Hub because these are intentional decisions, not from an AI/automated system.
I'll refrain from the sarcasm. Although...it's very appealing.
Is exApple-anon (OG comment that I responded to protect the obvious attack vector) the same as limono (HN submission)?
Do you have evidence of this? I hope you certainly don't believe that they are the same person in a 100,000 person organization. This would be terribly assumptive.
I don't believe limono's questions were malicious but I wanted to make it clear why the questions were inappropriate.
I'm not sure you understand that Apple could bury this person's career and numerous companies only need one phone call to let this person go. Please understand that you're creating an attack vector that is too great for this person to reveal.
> Adult hobbies are expensive. Depends on what you value.
> $2,000 spent across 4 years which gave me thousands of hours of enjoyment really isn't that expensive. You spent the money, so you saw the value in it. I'd say it was a complete waste. For you, it's clearly not.
Value is relative, that's my point.
I remember when one could buy a game for $50 and play it for 250-400 hours (unlocking hidden things, playing with multiple friends with just my purchase). Roughly a dime for entertainment. In some cases, it was sub a penny USD.
You have some expensive hobbies my friend.
P.S. 95% of search attempts can be adequately satisfied with DGG. I'd suggest you isolate G products to a specific browser, this way you isolate what data you actually provide G with.
This is very good advice. They also have an hour long presentation as well. I haven't watched it yet but I plan to. That 6 min clip was fantastic.
> If I'm understanding it correctly, this technology could ultimately provide a means to generate very realistic holograms (after many iterations and lots of capital investment).
Well, they first used this to disrupt kidney stones but there will be numerous applications to this. Being able to model and control light in ways that we never have before opens up many fields.
Is the company that you worked for, are they still in business? I'd be surprised if they were. If they are, I'm curious how large this business is. B/c I suspect they are able to charge it (the losses) to the owners.
You've never worked as a cashier. If one is behind the till, they have a direct camera on them for their entire shift.
Regardless, based on summaries that I've read, I wish I started with this book since it gives a solid understanding of western philosophy.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosoph...