kingofmen

Yes. "Relatively". We really need a fast-track process for genuinely insane nonsense to get shot down in a matter of days, not months.

This is not my experience at all. I have never received an informal email like this from a manager; even chat threads at my job are generally correctly spelled, grammatical, and fully professional. Maybe I'm not talking to sufficiently exalted leadership?

For some given task, perhaps; but the AI only consumes power while actively working. The human has to run 24/7 and also expends energy on useless organs like kidneys, gonads, hopes, and dreams.

Forms of retirement that don't have the force of law can be adjusted on the fly to match the available resources. When the government forcibly requires that each elderly person be paid a fixed amount of resources yearly, it's possible for there to be literally zero surplus for the young people making the resources. That can't happen under systems where the transfers are voluntary.

Of course talent+effort are better than either alone, but it seems strange to argue that there will be zero effect on the value of having just one of them. AI may not raise the talented lazy person straightforwardly above the hard-working grinder but it seems likely that it will alter their relative position, in favor of talent.

Humans, even pointy-haired ones, do have slightly larger brains than dogs precisely for the purpose of being able to form associations over longer timespans. That's a big part of what intelligence is.

Ok, but does SBF still control enough money that Trump would care about it?

They did, but not through any virtue or skill on her part. That was just the plain luck of Bitcoin happening to go way way up before the bankruptcy estate paid out using what it had, and the court that sentenced her couldn't know that would happen and if it somehow had, should not have taken it into account. You wouldn't advocate a lighter sentence for murder if the bullet had miraculously been struck by lightning on its way to the target's skull and thereby missed.

Then I guess I misremembered. :shrug:

Neither did the jihadists. The Jihad occurs 10000 years before the events of Dune, which is set approximately 12k years AD. So... any year now.

How many of them believe that copyright infringement and job loss are "major harms"? How many believe that data centers put a Great Lake through their cooling system daily? Polls like this are meaningless.

Since the roads are paid for by taxes, the software engineers are paying more for them in the first place. Why shouldn't they get more of the benefit?

Do you eat meat?

Uh... which one? Choice is not obvious to me, and I think it would depend on the type of cancer.

How long has it been since you needed to mail a physical document to a bank, a government department, or something similar?

If someone drinks a cup of coffee, there is one less cup of coffee in the world. The money that other people get is just a piece of paper, it is not useful for anything. Wasteful consumption of real resources is not 'stimulus', it is just waste.

It appears to me that comrade LeGuin is being rather willfully ignorant here. The detailed implementation of the algorithm is not public, but the basic concept - download every webpage, index by keywords, rank by number of links - is well known and had been well known for some time even in 2010. LeGuin could have, well, googled it. But then she wouldn't have gotten an anti-capitalist essay out of her ignorance.

Thank you! Rephrasing for my own understanding: The point of attack that I was missing was that angles BDE and ABC are equal, and now we have two equal angles (which immediately gives us the third) and one equal side, so we're good to go.

I'm having some trouble with this part of the explanation:

> From the figure, one can easily see that the triangles ABC and BDE are congruent.

I must confess I do not easily see this. It's been a long time since I did any geometry, could someone help me out? I'm probably forgetting some trivial fact about triangles.

"Better known for other work".

I didn't say it was a good idea. I said it was available to people other than the "richest of the rich".

Most brokerages will offer you a margin loan if you have say $100k of stocks held through them. Not pocket change, but easily available to magnitudes 4-5 on this scale.

That would make sense, but again, should be mentioned as context for why the number is bad. It's not as though we're skimping on wordcount here.

There's something I deeply don't understand about this.

> I shared these results with a leading lipidologist who proclaimed: “Not sure if the lab or the primary care doc said an LDL-C of 116 mg/dL was fine but that concentration is the 50th percentile population cut point in the MESA study and should never ever be considered as normal.

> It’s also important to note that, according to a lipidologist friend, an ApoB of 96 is at a totally unacceptable 50th percentile population cutpoint from Framingham Offspring Study.

So... the exact median value is "totally unacceptable" and "should never ever be considered as normal"? I'm open to the possibility that the US population is so deeply unhealthy that this is true, but then that needs to be argued for or at least mentioned. Like, you can't say "you're exactly average in this respect" and expect your and that's terrible to be taken seriously without any followup.

Or if I'm misunderstanding what's meant by "50th percentile population cut point" then again, I think this jargon should be explained, as it's plainly not the usual meaning of "50th percentile".

> There's no appetite for saying stuff like "we will seize $100 billion from the wealthiest individuals and give it to everyone else as cash payments".

Indeed. Because anyone who is numerate enough to do the division quickly realizes that this works out to about $300 per person, and stops being excited about the Wowie Big Number.

> may identify

> linked to

Really putting their necks on the chopping block and making with the bold opinions, here.

At last we have built the Torture Clock from the famous fantasy story, "Don't Build the Torture Clock".

> we'll need the people to actually fight the war itself.

Will we? It appears to me that modern war works substantially like modern factories - you don't actually want a large mass of semiskilled workers to pull the levers, each of which can substitute for a different one on about five minutes' notice. You want relatively few, highly-trained specialists to instruct the ~~robots~~ drones. It is perhaps less true in war than in manufacturing, quantity still has that quality all its own, but it seems very unclear that just raw numbers of soldiers will be an important bottleneck as between Great Powers.

If there is one house per person then approximately every person gets a house, because almost everyone is willing and able to pay more for their first house than even a very wealthy person will pay for a second one. If there are 1.5 houses per person then you will have to work quite hard at being homeless.

> its value goes up

Its price goes up. "Price is what you pay, value is what you get"; houses do not increase in value over time.