jsbg

No it doesn't. According to chatgpt about 9x as many people have lived since 1825 as there were then and the world gdp is 157x as much as it was then.

no they didn't

> Value is limited to the total possible energy expenditure of the human population and

says who?

> (and proportional)

again, no one is arguing that people who wear too much perfume are not obnoxious

> a chemical attack

what chemical?

this all contradicts this part

> not because someone wears to much or smell to intensely

a normal perfume/cologne wearer is not going to smell 10 feet away

also

> Fresh rain primarily eliminates free-floating chemical attacks and does not cause one itself.

yes, petrichor

no, how is that relevant? someone has something to sell for $1 that you value more than the $1 in your pocket so you buy it; doesn't matter if someone a block away is selling it for $0.50

arguably we would have better standards because it would mean less spent on wars, which are pure destruction of value

You are conflating money and value. Value is infinite, e.g. compare the world today to 200 years ago. Even relatively poor people live better today than kings did then. Creating value is not the same as printing money.

in fact value is created in every transaction: someone sells something for more money than it's worth to them and someone buys the thing for less money than the thing is worth to them (otherwise the transaction would not occur)

> We found files shown earlier in a PR to receive more comments than files shown later

I often stop reviewing a PR if I have too many comments on it already that need to be addressed so I wouldn't say this is necessarily what it sounds like (later files get less attention). Also, a comment on an early file might address a concern in a later file that will be fixed by the time I actually review the later files.

That said, keep your PRs short and you won't have to worry about stuff like that.

> And it is not because someone wears to much or smell to intensely either. Sometimes I barely smell it but it feels equally violently bad.

I don't understand how this is distinguishable from random smells going about life, like traffic, fresh rain, flowers, cooking, grass, etc.

> the LLM tries too hard to satisfy the critic

The LLM doesn't have to know about the critic though. It can just output things and the critic is a second process that filters the output for the end user.

are movies like Evil Does Not Exist as popular in Japan as the examples in the article though? there must be a lot of similar niche movies made in the US

As an ESL person I do wish English used accents the way Spanish does to indicate what syllable has the primary emphasis.

What I find cringeworthy is @Suhail saying they thought he was in the US but actually was in India—outing his company as not checking employment eligibility [0]. If he was actually allowed to work in the US—which doesn't seem to be the case since he hasn't responded to any replies asking about this—then they hired someone who underperformed, or in the worst case violated a company policy they might have that employees cannot have another job. Hardly seems like something worth shouting from rooftops.

[0] https://x.com/Suhail/status/1940441569276158190

I invest about 40% of my income and other than necessities I spend an inordinate amount of money on travel, alcohol, and food. If I had more money I would travel more and spend more on alcohol and food.

But this is exactly what happens in a democracy: majority rule. You can't separate religion from state in this sense.

It's a good point about confirmation and survivorship biases. However, the Skype example is really an example of what happens when your codebase has coupling where there shouldn't be. Encapsulation is a foundational concept in software engineering for a reason. That doesn't mean that it's not useful to know, e.g. the inner workings of your database. But it's unreasonable to expect that anyone at your software company can know more than a surface amount about what other teams do.

if you want other people to give you money you have to offer something they want, not something that interests you

> If you don't have an appropriate work visa, permanent residency or citizenship

Well, TN is none of those, and here I am authorized to work legally. If I apply for another job elsewhere, the honest answer to this question is yes, despite the fact that I will be required to get a new TN.

Can you expand on that? TN does not require sponsorship even though most companies do agree to pay an immigration firm to help the applicant.

> Answering "Yes" to 1 when you don't have a green card or US citizenship would be a way to guarantee that I would rescind your offer and make a mental note to never trust you.

I wouldn't trust you either. The question is ambiguous when it comes to NAFTA and applicants are worried about being filtered out despite not needing visa sponsorship. TN is not a visa it's a status based on a free trade agreement.

Not a lawyer but have been working in the US on a TN status for multiple employers and I would answer yes and discuss further with the recruiter or hiring manager.

TN status is conceivably something you could get without help from the employer (though even the smallest startup hired one to help me set up a package). What you need is basically proof that a company wants to hire you (offer letter), evidence that the company exists, and proof that you fall in one of the TN occupations.

> If I could legally hypothecate my entire tax payment to science funding

That is literally the opposite of how taxes work though. Other people decide how your money is spent. If your financial situation was that of the US govt [0] I also don't think you would act the way you say with your earnings.

[0] https://www.usdebtclock.org/

assuming the government is already maximizing tax revenue on the laffer curve, what would you be willing to give up so that it could spend more on theoretical science research?

> but it’s really not how things work in a democracy

The US is very purposefully not a democracy.

> Using an inaccurate phrase like “central planning” calls your motives into question.

My motives are transparently not to have the money I earn taken from me to subsidize theoretical science research.

> The whole reason to collect taxes is for good of the society.

There are infinitely many things that are marginally good for society and finitely many resources to accomplish them. Spending on irreplicable research has an opportunity cost that most taxpayers wouldn’t choose. Framing it as empathy to forcibly take their income and subsidize lofty science is ironic.

> it's almost entirely applied, [...] you need both halves there to sustain our current progress

why do we need to subsidize "half" of these pharma companies' research? if they can't get it for free then they'll have to find a way to do it themselves at a profit

> why must something be profitable in order to justify it? Are there no valid outcomes other than profit?

Because if it isn't profitable then it needs to be subsidized to continue. Given the replication crisis I don't think it's most people's priority to use part of their paycheck for this.

this is a major misperception of what private research output is actually like