kulahan

I was mostly curious about the source and figured that would bring it out. Sorry.

It wouldn't require perfect accuracy, just rough accuracy and a human to confirm, and it's already more than good enough for that. I do not understand this confusion surrounding modern math.

Gates never said that, for what it's worth.

I'm not paying for it, so when they get wordy and stupid, I just respond with something akin to "turn that response into like half a paragraph."

>ADHD-friendly outputs. No ADHD diagnosis needed!

Don't worry, that's how it works in the real world, too.

As an example, you do realize that in the South Park episode where Gerald starts farting into a wine glass after buying an electric car, they're not making fun of people who buy electric cars, but rather people who think they're special for having bought an electric car, right?

And with Gore, it's not that he took a huge stance, it's that his messaging was goofy and ineffective.

Satire is dead, I guess.

I love the idea that one side has simply been historically evil in your mind, and that by not spending most of their time explaining carefully to everyone how that group IS in fact evil and despicable, they're somehow part of the extremist group having found a populist president amid a nation that generally has extremely low voter turnout.

Your style of thinking in and of itself could be a SP episode

Those intrinsic costs are still muddled within digital payment systems which represent nothing tangible. You can take loans out from world banks, you can run your country into slavery, or you can do a million other things you want which are irrational but still overcome these nonexistent constraints. Do you think the US is printing out a dollar for every single bill they pay? Do you not understand that the US is currently trillions of dollars in debt? Do you not see how constraints are, at best, suggestions enforced only when the majority agrees something is not worth profiting off of?

What do you mean it doesn't matter what the US wants to do? The US doesn't want to go into another war. One man at the top forcing his army against their will and advice to do something is simply obedience, not a sign of what a country wants anyways.

Nobody wants this in the US, and it's why even traditionally extremely neutral outlets like Reuters and AP News are willing to state that Trump is currently deeply unpopular with Republicans.

Pay attention, and let go of your strawmen, I beg of you.

Even Canada and Mexico aren't stupid enough to align with China, and if you think a power vacuum will simply exist and remain in balance in perpetuity, I've got a bridge to sell you.

If you're just talking about the relatively brief period before it's clear who will emerge as the default hegemony, I don't really care about that period and am discussing after.

I just run a VM with linux running WINE so I can browse securely on Safari, and all of this is on an rPi I actually vampire tapped into the coax network of the local town hall.

Still feels unsafe.

There was an American presidential candidate who ran on the platform of Americans getting to own their data and privacy like property in... 2016? I think? Agree with it or not, he was pretty forward-thinking at least.

This entire statement relies on the idea that world leaders are highly rational actors, which they absolutely are not.

Everyone is just gonna stop trying to acquire influence for some reason...? Or do you just think that, for some reason, this would now magically balance itself out any time any world leader thinks "wow that's a huge vacuum that needs filling!"

Nobody appointed the US leader of the world, what are you talking about? It's just a matter of "whoever is most powerful and influential". There's no war needed, and the US never conquered the planet.

I'm not doubting that China is the likely eventual successor, I'm doubting that they can succeed anything at this particular point in time. Nobody wants China in charge. It would make any issues experienced with the US in charge like a joke. Maybe once their dictator dies?

Ah, okay, that makes a lot more sense! Thanks!

Does anyone in power anywhere actually think China has finally overtaken the US hegemony? Or are we pretending someone else might somehow hold that position?

No, both of them look awful. I genuinely am unsure if this is a meme you're making that's going over my head...?

That photo looks pretty hilariously stupid, so this appears to be more of a first toe dip rather than some indication we can one-shot a previously difficult process.

I feel like this is the medical equivalent of saying "I can't believe these guys didn't try turning it off and on again".

Like, "maybe the people whose job is to consider the cause and spread of disease never considered diet and hydration!"

Energy begets energy. Sloth begets sloth. It's a simple calorie conservation thing. Why power up the body to 80% when it'll only need 10%?

This isn't the answer for everyone, but for 90% of people, it moves the needle in the right direction.

It's just someone drawing conclusions based on what the author chose to write, which is common and fine.

Yeah, that's not living an NPC life. Nobody is talking about that when they call someone an NPC.

These aren’t state-owned companies, they’re federal services. It’s also, as stated, not how it works for any other org or business in the US. Maybe everyone else in the world has some kind of problem similar to this, but it appears to at least be a somewhat unique situation in the US.

That's the crazy thing about the US. Our postal service is, for some reason, not funded by taxpayer dollars, but also not allowed to run a profit, they are not allowed to change prices without congressional approval, and they must fund their pension for 75 years - well beyond any requirement anyone else in the US faces, to include both federal agencies and private orgs. If they didn't have that last requirement, they'd be solvent.

It’s worth mentioning that destroying the USPS has been a largely bipartisan effort, for reasons I cannot understand.

Edit: when the PAEA passed in 2006, it had 410 “yes” votes. Not a single democrat, and only 20 republicans voted no. This was, and still is, the primary reason the USPS is no longer able to function.

Y-yeah. That was my point.

Can you not connect the ideas that “nobody pays attention to this guardrail in any meaningful sense” and “there are no guardrails”?

I can spell out every point I was making just as specifically as this one if the only thing you were able to pick up was an “appeal to emotion” (note: that’s not what I’m doing, of course, I’m simply showing that the guardrails are effectively useless… how you brought up that point and yet still somehow completely missed it is beyond me), but I’m holding out hope that you’re just being hyperbolic, and it wasn’t actually out of your grasp.

Edit: and stop with the stupid misuse of phrases, or I’ll pull out equally stupid ones. You think I’m appealing to emotion, and yet you’re Gish Galloping! You have no argument then!!! (See how dumb this looks?)

I’m not arguing that human labor shouldn’t be romanticized. I’m arguing that computer labor shouldn’t be romanticized MORE than the agrarian variety. Of course labor should be romanticized. Every single thing we have to show as a species is the result of labor.

And us being able to create guardrails which sometimes work if you’re caught is not the same as a force of nature. There are no good or bad outcomes in nature, there are only consequences. This is absolutely not true in civilization.

We have nearly zero guardrails to prevent the damage. Did… you see Nepal? You realize this is a direct result of us either not having, or easily ignoring those guardrails?

As it turns out, starving because you chose to overeat is not going to have the same intensity as a law requiring you to please choose to throw back a fish which is too small (ignore the story about third world countries doing bomb fishing).

The last dude is scared of nuclear tech despite it fitting neatly into Berry’s rules except for him being anti-big-tech.

Why should I care about tech? As someone who grew up in a city, with a family that ran a business building mainframes back in the early computer days, there is nothing to romanticize.

That’s why your comment is not particularly well-received. I’ve had the exact opposite experience as you, I’ve seen overwhelming sadness and misery and depression spawned from a tech-filled life. I hardly can count the few crazy deep into tech who seem at peace simultaneously. So many people leave tech for something more meaningful is almost a meme at this point. The only defense I ever hear is “well if people would just…” but people DON’T just. They never just. They never have just, and they never will just.

In nature, this works out just fine, because there are many natural guardrails. Don’t piss off the tiger. Guardrail: it eats you. Don’t gorge on your fish pond. Guardrail: you deplete and starve.

In society, there are no guardrails because individuals can have massively outsized impacts. One man can start a construction project that depletes his pond, then deplete 40 other ponds refilling his own.