occamsrazorwit

It's median, but I think there's a similar effect actually. A lot of people "watch TV" as a side activity to something else (like browsing their phone). Alas, I've never been able to multitask as well as my digitally-poisoned peers.

Yishan (former Reddit CEO) describes how Altman orchestrated the removal of Reddit's owner: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...

Note that the response is Altman's, and he seems to support it.

As additional context, Paul Graham has said a number of times that Altman is one of the most power-hungry and successful people he know (as praise). Paul Graham, who's met hundreds if not thousands of experienced leaders in tech, says this.

If you haven't seen the news update, that's apparently what happened. The Chief Scientist pushed out the other two C-levels, accusing them of hiding stuff from the rest of the board. The board took his side.

Altman and Brockman have yet to share their side of the story.

Don't they only have to hide the truth from one person? Altman and Brockman were ousted. The only other person on the board from OpenAI is the Chief Scientist, and I doubt he's that involved in the business-end of things.

Edit: Also, yes, it's hard to sweep things under the rug. We don't know the timeline of events, and we're seeing an instance where Altman failed to hide something.

This is kinda ironic. The founders of Splunk originally created the product, because they realized that every sysadmin used their own, single-file script to analyze logs. They cleaned the scripts up and productionized what emerged. The reason Splunk grew to a billion-dollar company in the first place was that those sysadmins preferred to switch over to something that was more enterprise-grade. Life is cyclical.

TL;DR: It's taking the standard premise that there's no such thing as dying from old age, and applying it to examining treatment for elderly patients. The current conception of a human lifespan is within the context of a world where medical interventions are preferentially given to the young instead of the old. Thus, a doctor might not recommend a course of treatment for a 100-year-old (who may be much younger, biologically) because of an incorrect belief about human lifespan, the 100-year-old dies soon as a result, and the cycle continues.

#tbt Siri being unable to even start a timer for years

The fee was paid by pre-Musk Twitter to the law firm hours before the acquisition. This is less damning that it may appear, because Musk instructed Twitter to explicitly not pay Wachtell, but those instructions don't mean anything to pre-Musk Twitter. The best time to pay Wachtell would be right before the acquisition (to ensure that the legal matters are complete without Musk halting payments).

It's unclear what the company papers show. The Matt Levine article [1] goes into pretty good detail about the case.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-11/matt-l...

I think there's a few other factors that impact visibility.

* The Bay Area is a place where you can make $100k a year and be classified as low-income [1].

* Tech employees tend to live low-key lifestyles that don't really show how much they're making. I know people who make $500k and still live with roommates.

* Income inequality and progressive politics combine to make people less reluctant to talk about their TC packages, unless you're also at a similar socio-economic level.

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/under-100k-low-income-s...

> you are that person for someone else

Especially if you're American. Gallup [1] reports:

> The median annual household income worldwide is $9,733, and the median per-capita household income is $2,920

Even among developed nations, Americans get paid more.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-househo...

Yesterday, Gitlab hadn't had a layoff.

While Apple did have a much smaller increase in headcount over the last few years, I wouldn't use Apple as an example while we're still in the midst of everything. In December, people were touting Google as an example of one of the layoff-proof companies. I didn't trust that logic, and I don't trust the logic that Apple is somehow immune when they're so closely tied into the tech industry. For example, I'm theorizing that a non-trivial part of their profits comes from supporting the developer ecosystem (who else buys max-spec Macs at scale?). Regardless of the underlying reason, mass layoffs and tightened budgets are going to dry up B2B profit streams.

Behavioral economists have ascribed economic bubbles to the same root causes as mass hysteria. Humans may become more sophisticated, but the tendency to believe in collective delusions are rooted deep in our psychology.

It's a literal meaning referring to the idea of a secret ruling class of leftist women in society. They're assumed to have all this societal influence and control ("blue-haired gestapo") despite no actual leaders resembling this. I feel like the burden of proof is pretty high for claims like this.

Users have been reporting issues with missing reply notifications and missing replies for a while. It's not obvious if you're not paying close attention, so I think most people won't really notice. Try counting the number of replies versus the number of replies shown. It doesn't appear to be a spam-filter issue either as those replies are benign and still exist if you navigate to them via a profile.

Here's an example I just pulled up that's the second thread on my feed: https://twitter.com/LordCarsonEsq/status/1615134592222257155

There are six replies here. If you refresh enough, you can see a different subset of two replies, so that's probably not a spam-filter.

It's probably because the aesthetic here is relatively bland, and sandals are an existing form-factor of shoe. Airpods are aggressively sleek and white, and they sit in a weird uncanny valley of accessory and tool. Technically, wired earbuds have the same hanging-stem, but everyone's used to them, so no one notices them.

As to the aesthetics, I'm sure people thought the same of all types of bicycles. Penny-farthings used to be the cultural norm, and people still ride less-common forms like small-wheel and recumbent bicycles.

To be fair, there's a very real business reason for keeping login and sign-up prompts. I'm surprised he didn't recognize that as a founder. I imagine some PM panicking and running around after learning about the change.

It definitely isn't. There's a noted problem with replies failing and disappearing. The number of replies versus the number of replies is often inconsistent, and it changes with new replies being added (so it's not some spam-detection gone amok).

It's not heavily subsidized. It still costs like $10 for a meal.

Also, my point in using Apple as a reference was that they do have a crunch culture (occasional 80-hour workweeks), and those cafeterias aren't open all day (unlike the Twitter ones).

How is ordering Grubhub a drain on productivity?? Most tech companies don't have free food (e.g. Apple), so I doubt that's an important aspect here.

He tried to get gain some meme cred but lost some actual credibility instead. Ouch.

From the "Twitter Files", the platform reporting system has a list of accounts, and those accounts can have different levels of "approval" for moderation. For example, any moderation action taken on Libs of Tik Tok would require approval from a committee [1]. Larger, more popular accounts require more eyes as they're likely to garner more "false" reports.

All of this is to say that there are three likely scenarios:

1. For whatever reason (e.g. staffing, technical problems, lack of training), PG's account didn't get treated with the scrutiny it deserved.

2. A report on PG's account went up the chain, landed in front of a trained moderation team, and they banned him against Musk's wishes (presumably unintentionally).

3. Musk desired his ban.

If it was a random tech CEO, I think Scenario 2 would be most likely. Given the recent technical issues with Twitter, their employee turnover, and Musk's recent actions towards "former allies" that spoke out against him, I think it's actually a toss-up.

[1] https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601018810495995904

He also tried to anonymously get news agencies to publish that the cave diver was a pedophile too [1].

[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/elon-musk-thai-...

After seeing PG claim that the criticism of Musk was rooted in politics yesterday, I think it's clear that he's become a Musk fanboy. Ironically, this very article is pretty useful in prescribing how to react towards PG himself.

Edit: Maybe the suspension will break PG's fanboy-ism, and he'll emerge humbler and wiser.

> If someone is competent enough to sustain 2 jobs, they will also get quickly promoted to 2x their salary if they are working one job.

One of the benefits of this is that you don't have to be competent enough to sustain two jobs. There are people who do this and just swap their jobs every year or less. Another side benefit of that is that people have lower expectations for the new hire, and if you're perpetually a new hire...

The "Innovation in the physical world" section seems to have little that actually addresses the productivity and societal part of the Great Stagnation. mRNA vaccines aren't some massive innovation over traditional vaccines, and the difference between mRNA and traditional vaccines won't have a visible impact on daily life. Clean energy and lab-grown meat are great innovations, but the ideal case for both is that they're indistinguishable from dirty energy and animal meat in use case.

How does developing a vaccine two months faster have a lasting impact on daily life? The best case argument for having a noticeable impact is COVID, and we can't even use that because we split vaccine development into multiple tracks. It's possible that we would've had a traditional vaccine around the same time if we focused more resources on it and less on a novel technique.

I'm surprised no one brought up the possible explanation that those female gamers are anonymous while Slate Star Codex is pseudonymous, not anonymous. If you read his post carefully, he mentions that his identity is actually public knowledge. His main concern is with NYT drawing attention to this, making him a public figure and making it "too easy". His entire thing is protecting pseudonymity, not anonymity.

> It doesn't matter what people on HN say, as long as the market agrees.

The market can never overvalue or undervalue? Hmm...

If you allow people to rate the ratings, you come back to the original issue that people are unreliable raters.

Dislikes over likes does sound interesting though.

How would you fix the ratings issue? That's a common issue with ratings systems in general (that they reflect popularity instead of quality).