jonahrd

I absolutely understand why NVIDIA is incentivized to maintain CUDA dominance, and I absolutely understand that within these market parameters, AMD/Intel/others have dropped the ball.

However it's worth noting that in the end, it's the consumer that loses out when these technical/capability moats maintain a de facto sort of monopoly on certain use cases.

I remember reading a very well written article on stuxnet, detailing the entire way it worked. It was written in a very story-like way that built slowly until it revealed what the actual payload and impact was. Does anyone have a link to this article?

I'm not sure I fully buy this, only because how would anyone be absolutely certain that they'd make more with Sam Altman in charge? It feels like a weird thing to speculatively rally behind.

I'd imagine there's some internal political drama going on or something we're missing out on.

That is the point of the study, but in my non-scientific opinion it seems like a very poorly crafted study.

Nobody is going to have issues with attention/motivation during the one, short task they were assigned at some study. It's a very novel, motivating environment.

And then of course if you're feeling the effects of a new drug, you'll be "off" a bit.

This doesn't really prove anything about kids who take it for a few nights during exam week to study.

This is super interesting. Are there more examples I can see? The one in the article is a famous song which makes me wonder if it's really "decompressing" the data, or just being hunted towards a very common popular pattern of tokens.

I see. This article compares GDP vs housing prices, which isn't a surprise that US fares very well because the US is stellar at GDP growth.

But GDP is _absolutely irrelevant_ to the average citizen's purchasing power / income.

Urbanisation is a trend across the entire globe for many more reasons than just wanting to live in a few attractive areas.

And it's absolutely necessary for us to urbanize instead of the wasteful way we use our land, in order to avoid the impending climate, biodiversity, and energy crises.

Anyway --- with this square footage argument. End of the day, I'm still priced out of a house, whether it'd be a big one or a small one. I don't really care about the price per square footage, I care about the ability to get a roof over my head.

Edit: Actually, can you provide sources for this? From what I can find, home prices have been anything but flat, even adjusting for inflation: https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/ I have a hard time believing that in ~12 years we grew the entire housing stock square footage by 33%

I also found some data that strongly disputes your claim that the US is the 5th lowest house price to salary ratio: https://www.statista.com/statistics/237529/price-to-income-r..., in fact it seems to be comfortably in the top 10 _highest_

I don't know why I'm even surprised, but this is very funny! Of course my "simple" solution has problems as well :)

Maybe something you could opt into though?

While we're at it, why is the 'hide' button so close to the submission link, with no confirmation?

I often accidentally click hide, have to navigate to my profile, click 'hidden', click 'un-hide' then have to go back to the front page and find the post again.

It could simply be replaced with an 'sure? yes / no' right before hiding and this problem would disappear.

Same goes for 'flag'. In fact, sometimes I'm not even sure if I've hidden or flagged the link and I have to check both.

Do we ever record record cold months on a global scale?

My understanding is that globally, we keep seeing record warm months. Perhaps locally there are some record cold months but that's much less _news_ than the entre global average.

You copied and pasted, and edited 5->4 and 4->3 in an attempt to make a point about a slippery slope.

But you didn't edit this sentence:

> 4-on, 3-off means you spend over twice as many days working as not working.

Which now doesn't make sense. Proving that it's _not_ as simple as a slippery slope.

The author is handwavingly wondering aloud if shoplifting is responsible for the cost of living crisis, spurred on by new shittier checkout procedures.

No, it's demonstrably not. I shop from a few small local grocery stores within walking distance that haven't changed their checkout systems in years, in a nice neighborhood in downtown. The prices had skyrocketed regardless.

I am telling you that Metropolis for always being cited as one of the greatest films of all time is not actually that good, although very very influential.

Alright I'll take that comment back, it is pretty good and I see other films of the same tier on this list.

I still think this list lacks recent films.

Mad Max Fury Road?

Also, heavily biased towards the 20s-50s

Edit: more detail, 35/250 films are from the past 25 years, from 1998 to now. Less than 1/7 of films from over 1/5 of the entire history of film?

And then the consistant bias of impact to the industry vs actual filmic value... this isn't supposed to be a list of the 250 most impactful films... I've seen a few of these older films from the 20s or 30s. For sure, they were developing the language of film and are absolutely key to film history. But are you really going to say they stand up to films made in recent years with a fully mature vocabulary?

This is such a common occurrence on lists like this, they might as well be called "250 films you will probably watch in film studies class"

Another edit: I counted 42 films from the 25 year period from 1920-1945

I don't fully agree with parent poster, but the questions in your comments begged for some legitimate answers:

> What do you expect them to do with office buildings filled with conference rooms and thousand dollar conference room chairs?

Turn them into public housing, public spaces, publicly funded cafeterias, etc.

> Not to mention now you've put a 100,000 people out of work, probably more. I guess making them starve

Now with the excess in housing and all these public spaces and cafeterias, maybe it wont be as necessary for people to hang on to fulltime work.

This makes me wonder if something like Google+ "circles" or the idea of maintaining a finsta could translate into a way to bring back posting on social media.

I think what Google+ got wrong is that connections are a 2-way street, you may not realize your new friend _wants_ the day-to-day updates and soccer game invites, because to you they may just be someone you met at work.

Imagine if you could have a list of feeds to follow, personal, professional, etc. And when adding someone you could follow whichever feeds you wanted, and unfollow certain ones at any point. Some could be private, so you'd have to be approved to follow.

Then I wouldn't feel the need to remove old acquaintances from fb, I would just unfollow their feeds. I would feel comfortable posting stuff related to my job/networking because I know only people following my professional feed would see it. And I'd be comfortable posting personal stuff to my personal feed if it was locked and I was the maintainer of who could follow it.

They could pretty easily implement this in facebook and I could imagine it breathing life back into the platform.

I develop cross-platform desktop software. I have one backend/set of build flags for Linux binaries, and another very distinct one for ChromeOS. For me, it makes sense to differentiate the two.

From what you wrote, it sounds like they are already back, still in their severance window, and took maybe a 2-3 week trip?

This sounds like a very reasonable thing to do when you receive a 4 month severance package. There's still time to look for work. I assume your friend who works in tech also has some amount of savings.

Life isn't a single track of work that you mustn't ever get off or you will utterly fail. There's room for some amount of leeway in moments like these.

This is a very 'Economist' article-- looking at macro trends instead of what actual Americans are feeling.

Sure, healthcare has expanded, GDP has risen, even pay has gone up.

But the _cost_ of healthcare has rapidly ballooned, the _cost_ of education, housing, etc has rapidly ballooned.

It's very precarious to live in the US without a healthy savings account. That's why people are saying the economy is shit right now.

Where do you read that it's an "unwanted kiss"?

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I've looked through this article 3 times and can only see it referred to as a sexual assault.

I believe this idea somewhat stems from American exceptionalism. Our country is so exceptional that it must require exceptional solutions.

There are many countries out there (Finland, France) that don't have this crisis in education and are not grasping for radical solutions. They are just incrementally improving the systems in place.

Why would the US need a completely different solution?

It's a pretty big claim to say the ability to purchase cannabis online is due to crypto.

The legalization movement started well before crypto, and the consumer laziness to anything except online shopping has also been around a long time. It's a pretty "natural" development. Also, it's not available everywhere.

I notice in this article a pattern where the author makes some really detailed statistical analysis of a trend, including rebuttal to some theories that aren't backed up by the statistics in a useful, well-presented way --

And then immediately launches on a tangent based on a self proclaimed theory with no backup...

But one of the major points he makes is that the economy isn't actually that notably worse, because we all have a roof or something? This point strikes me as very out of touch. There are a significant number of people who are in significantly more precarious economic situations. The gap is widening due to rising housing, healthcare, education, etc costs. He does mention this but somehow manages to also dismiss it...

But these stock image artists provided consent when signing a contract and selling their work to Adobe. The contract is pretty clear that you basically don't own the work anymore and Adobe can do whatever they want with it.

If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.

I would assume it would go with 949, weird that it doesn't

I live in the highest density cycling city in North America (Montreal) and this is not anecdotal. A huge portion of my office cycle-commutes to work, and the vast majority do not shower. This was doubly-true before I worked at my current company, where there weren't showers, and still most people used bikes to commute.

At what point do anecdotes from people who actually live this experience day to day become more useful to listen to than theories from people who don't?

I could probably count the number of times I've changed or showered after cycling on one hand, and cycling has been my main mode of transit for 10 years.

When your trip is like 3km you don't even have time to work up a sweat, especially if you're limited to just going at the speed of traffic. (Yes, on my own I could probably ride faster, but I'm limited by car/infrastructure speed)

It still doesn't seem to understand that the diamond won't magically fall back into the thimble

Are you just looking at raw numbers? Because the population size is different and in fact the link you posted says this:

> Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 5.9 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and January 2023.