marricks

> societal decline as a direct result of inflation and overspending

Really? Direct? Pretty sure the Roman’s had many other things happening upstream of overspending.

Many things were going wrong.

The pissing contests in terms of who is worse usually feels like a defense of our country. (I live in the US)

Perhaps we should be most critical of our own country as presumably its where we have the most control and blame.

Totally.

And FF7 was new (to me at least) in what it aped so it's all fine and cool.

I mean, they were always aping something though? Replaying FF7 I realized, at its core, it is just a mismash of 80s horror movies.

Still love it, but its interesting to notice in retrospect.

An emotional investor is still an investor, and I think people like you are specifically a lot of the reason MTG/Hasboro wants it to be collectible.

It's the "oh this card is valuable because it's powerful, and has good art, AND everyone else thinks it's monetarily valuable which justifies my nostalgia of it"

It's a weird example of how money messes things up. The "it's good in and my deck and has emotional value" should be enough because scarcity makes it hard for the 13 year old with only spare lunch money to get into EDH.

> And, yes, some people have asked why Tim doesn’t have other backups around, but (again) the FBI took all of his shit.

Let's not victim blame, especially when the victim wasn't stupid.

> https://www.dailymetalprice.com/metalpricecharts.php?c=li&u=...

It looks like it's returning to its pre-pandemic levels. Demand is increasing with EV's so it's still interesting, but possibly less interesting than the title implies.

I think many deeply insecure tech bros relate to him so much because they don't realize they themselves are that same sort of insecure. Also, I never said he was only motivated by it, he is just obviously extremely insecure.

> He really, really, wants to be internet liked

Which is different than "liked by 100% of the global population"

Not having a PR team is cool but it’s really just a doorway to seeing how most of these folks really are and it’s just desperately wanting to be seen as Tony Stark.

No, he wouldn’t get into so many mudslinging fights if he just cared about being famous. He desperately wants to be liked and thought of as cool.

MANY things he does are explicitly to be liked. That’s why he posts all the time, goes on interviews, shows up on SNL. Buys a social media company then burns company hours on figuring out why he isn’t the most viewed person on it.

He really, really, wants to be internet liked, that’s he claims he doesn’t care about.

That would be my personal preference, laser focus on their browser, but Perhaps they didn't because it's already good and the reason they're falling is combating monopolies. Safari/Edge are defaults in their space and have OS's that can nudge.

Google owns huge swaths of the internet and can nudge people as well and break other OS's on whim.

Mozilla probably felt the need to have other offerings and leadership to winback something when "being a great browser" wasn't enough in the past 14 years.

The article title is "most reliable new cars," so it's fair advertising of what it is.

Most reliable old cars would certainly be a good read though.

The only things from that era that didn’t get outright worse stayed the same (Craigslist).

What was beautiful about the internet then was there were so many corners were monetization either wasn’t easy or wasn’t chased so things could just exist.

Not so anymore!

I mean, you probably didn't pay much attention to battery capacity before phones, laptops, and electric cars, right? Battery capacity has probably increased though at some rate before you paid attention. It's just when something actually becomes relevant that we notice.

Not that more advances don't happen with sustained hype, just there's some sort of tipping point involving usefulness based either on improvement of the thing in question or it's utility elsewhere.

It seems like they had a lot of smart people doing smart things. I would hope it wanted to be open and non-profit so it didn't have to live by the "move fast and break things" mentality of all start ups.

They don't publish papers now, they actually published papers and code before.

No doubt OpenAI was never a glass house... but it seems extremely disingenuous to say their behavior hasn't changed.

I mean, no matter what people say about what happened, or what actually did, one can paint this picture:

( - OpenAI exists, allegedly to be open)

- Microsoft embraces OpenAI

- Microsoft extends OpenAI

- OpenAI gets extinguished, and Microsoft ends up controlling it.

First three points are solid and, intent or not, end result is the same.

I was paraphrasing what I remember of the blurb of the article. I probably should have used fundraising, though.

Or, rather, it’s odd that you haven’t heard what Sam did wrong. There was a front page Bloomberg article that alleges what Sam did and it was briefly in the top of this site then disappeared.

It alleged that Sam funneled a lot of money to his AI chip company startup.

What? Greed is the backbone of our startup landscape. As soon as you get VC backing all anyone cares about is a big payday. This is interesting because there is something going on beyond the typical pure greed shitshow.

Perhaps it was just that original intention for openai to be a nonprofit, but at some point somewhere it wasn't pure $ and that's what makes it interesting. Also more tragic because now it looks like it's heading straight to a for profit company one way or another.

The government isn't a household and its finances don't need to be treated as one. I think everyone in government knows this they just don't want constituent's to realize it so they hem and haw about any spending they don't like. Neither side super cares about social programs, dems just aren't the ones to cut them typically.

If you notice, whenever dems have launched a plan in the past 30-40 years they always say how it's almost always going to be "deficit neutral" or help because they actually don't want to increase spending (or help people all that much, is my take).

Both sides have and will continue to green light defense spending and other "important issues" so deficit goes up anyways.

Eisenhower warned this would be a thing and here we are, it's a thing. The best we will ever get is the illusion of spending being under control.

It's wild, but whenever a big change occurs there's always smart folks who knew what was going to happen and exactly called it out. Usually as a "ok guys be careful cause X could happen" and X inevitably does.

I think there's a pretty big difference between filing a ticket to open the building next door and having free workspaces around the world you don't have to do paperwork to use.

To me, the title made it sound like Big Tech was underplaying the risk to humanity, when it's actually stating the reverse:

> A leading AI expert and Google Brain cofounder said Big Tech companies were stoking fears about the technology's risks to shut down competition.

which is of course 100% what they're doing

Google has 280b (2022) in revenue mostly (entirely?) from ads.

Apple's is 394b (2022), so you're talking about 1%... growing to, what? 1.1%?

Everyone complains about overpriced Apple products and that's specifically because that is where they make their money. And services a bit now, but mostly products.

It's so easy to be nihilist about this, there's plenty of things Apple sucks at. They're certainly not perfect on privacy either.

But for the love of god don't act like they're "just as bad at privacy" as you are intentionally moving us to a world where literally no large company cares about privacy.

*I forgot to mention my (least) favorite category of Google's ads! Banner ads.

It’s why you gotta burn ivory. When something is a luxury item for the wealthy rules don’t really matter you have to destroy the market.

They are not an advertising company who doesn’t need to uniquely target you for a billion different ads. And no, their app store ads are not the same as Googles ads in search, gmail, maps, YouTube, and…

Stop saying everyone is equally bad with zero evidence to the contrary.

There’s a comment like yours every time Apple is called out as having a better business model here.

Of course, Texas is notoriously pro conservation and definitely not full of people who would complain about any sort of environmental protection given the chance.