shalmanese

Would you say the same if it were as physical disability? If you were born without hands and had slowly learnt how to do everything required in everyday life via an adaptation, would you reject a prosthetic if it were available?

We know people with ADHD are able to manage. The real test is always, after they try medication, is their life easier or not. A lot of people who were adamant they were managing just fine before the meds report afterwards they didn't realize how much effort they were putting in on a day to day basis just to manage themselves.

And this is not some general trend towards overmedicalization. As the article pointed out, there are precisely two psychiatric drugs that have this statistically significant an effect.

This article isn't much better than the genre of "Some rando on Twitter said" style articles. They're interviewing AI raters, of which there are millions in the world. It's not difficult to find a half dozen in any group that large to espouse any position. Some kind of polling would at least provide some statistical rigour but just "we managed to find a few people who espouse this position" is there purely to reinforce people's pre-existing biases.

We've known roughly this since The Nurture Assumption (1998). Where parents do have an impact is in being able to choose the social circles their children are immersed in.

There is no need for us random civilians to know the truth of these matters. Employees inside the company can see analytics that show whether the features are working or not.

How can they prevent in roll ads? YouTube Premium subscribers still see in roll ads. If you don’t want them, subscribe to the podcasts Patreon and they’ll provide you a custom RSS with no ads.

The purpose of a system is what it does. Proposing solutions is unhelpful because the system is not interested in the problem being fixed. The problem is a designed in feature.

But society's determination is that a certain quantity of illegal immigrants should enter every year because they have less rights and can be better exploited by businesses. Being deliberately blind to this reality is also living in a fantasy land.

What evidence do you have that it's driving consumers away from the product? The people who bother to say anything on the internet are the extreme dedicated minority and are often not representative of a silent majority. Unless you have access to analytics, you can't make this inference.

> And on the electricity side, forcing the US to actually build more power generating capacity and infrastructure is a good thing in my book.

Electricity use is fungible. Every extra TW-hr of marginal demand is one coal plant that is delayed an extra year from being mothballed, spewing one extra quantum of CO2 into the atmosphere, adding one increment to the greenhouse effect.

Most AI written article that was ever AIed. It’s not just a laziness — it’s disrespect towards the reader.

> then Claude mostly indulges my perceived bias

I dunno, Claude still seem the same amount of dubious in this instance.

This is not advancing a novel argument or creating of a new piece of content, this is about a factual claim about the world. How is it different from According to Google or According to Wikipedia or According to this scientific paper? It's saying this information is 3rd party sourced and I'm open to being corrected if you can point out the flaws in this way of gathering facts from the world.

Yes, but I don't know how more clearly to say this, it's not the court bit of it, it's forcing them to go dig into the archives. They will not do that, especially because there's also a risk of them definitively not being able to find this piece of paper and then having an even weaker claim than they had before.

Did you not slide your eyes immediately to the right to see (so correct me if the AI is wrong)?

If you want to fight it in court, you go fight it in court and waste a bunch of money, but if you don't lift a finger, then it enters default judgement. But in default judgement, the plaintiff still needs to demonstrate standing. Otherwise, I could randomly sue a bunch of random people for random nonsense and bank on most of them entering into default judgement.

If I'm a patent troll spraying and praying patent violation suits, I still at the end of the process still need to prove to own the patent I claim I do.

In this case, we know there is a lower cost to producing the document that Activision will not want to bear because the total they can recover is below just the cost of producing the document that proves standing. Why would I not just let it go into default judgement, knowing it's toothless?

OK, but according to ChatGPT (so correct me if the AI is wrong), if you ignore the cease and desist, then the process goes into default judgement where the claimants now need to prove standing to collect judgement. You now know with 100% certainty that they need to hire someone to dig through a file vault at Iron Mountain to collect judgment and they're not going to bother doing that so the default judgement means nothing and you can go about your merry way ignoring their cease and desist.

> This is a very risky take though and so nobody should risk it.

People keep on insisting when it comes to these things that various things are risky in a rather handwavey way but they never fully come out and articulate the risks.

I asked this question to ChatGPT a bunch of ways and tried to understand what the specifics are when people say this is risky and I can't really seem to get to anything that is a nuclear level risk, just a garden variety risk that you need to manage amongst all the other garden variety risks involved in running a business (when inputted with a reasonable set of realistic assumptions, it's possible to create assumptions where this is a nuclear level risk but that doesn't seem to apply to the majority of real world cases, including this one).

Disintermediation. The degree which marketplace platforms can exert pressure against disintermediation determines their right to exist.

Certain markets, it's absolutely trivial for marketplace participants to agree to an off-market transaction, cutting the marketplace out of any transaction fees. That's what killed all the Uber for Maids businesses of the early 10s.

Uber for Uber, on the other hand, is an absolutely amazing platform for preventing disintermediation. Occasionally, you'll get a driver handing you their personal business card and saying call me directly if you want a ride to the airport but overwhelmingly, people are unable to get around the platform, regardless of how high the middleman cut is.

Why would you set the probability at 1/3rd? It feels closer to 1/100 at most.

They've admitted the documents, if they're anywhere, are buried in a file cabinet at Iron Mountain. You can set a lower limit on the amount of labor required to produce the document. Activision is not going to go on this quest if the labor required * chance of the document existing exceeds the amount they can win in a lawsuit.

So say someone decides to produce a remaster of NOLF. Does Activision have to produce this piece of paper once they sue to establish standing? If Activision's version of this piece of paper was chewed up by rats in the 90s, does their ownership stake vanish in a puff as well?

If the potential victory from a lawsuit is $20K and Activision estimates it will cost them $50K to find this piece of paper, is the company relatively safe from a lawsuit?

> There should be a tenure element to power access.

NIMBYism, but applied to grid power!

Between the iPod socks, Airpods Max bra & Vision underpants, you have the real makings of a undergarment set.

Except that's the exact opposite of the takeaway, diminishing return problems are easy. He's proposing a model for why often art does the exact opposite and produces super-linear returns.

It's a common experience for an artist that everything they're doing to a piece makes it look like a total failure and far below the quality they were aspiring to until they do one final layer of polish and the piece transforms from sub-par to spectacular at the final stage. Of course, there are also scenarios where no amount of polish can fix it because the artist simply wasn't good enough and didn't find the right decisions at the final stage and other scenarios where there were no right decisions and no amount of skill could have fixed fatal flaws earlier in the decision making.

The exquisite agony of art is that all 3 scenarios feel subjectively almost identical in the middle of the creation process and so much of art is hoping we come up with some reliable process of divination to tease apart the micro-differences that give you an indication of what path you're on.

OP is proposing a model for why this is this is the case but unless you're an experienced creative, you don't understand the problem phenomena that this is identifying in the first place.

Miele has home dishwashers that do this now. But like all things consumer, it's a proprietary system that's designed to keep you locked into a subscription relationship with the company.

It’s worthwhile reading the original Fred Brooks “No Silver Bullets” paper where they explicitly cover LLMs under their “Hopes for the Silver” AI/Expert Systems/Automatic programming section and explain why it is still not a silver bullet.

https://worrydream.com/refs/Brooks_1986_-_No_Silver_Bullet.p...

All of these sneeringly cynical articles come from the same place: if these people are sincere in their beliefs, then I am a piece of shit. Since I am not a piece of shit, all of these people must be insincere in their beliefs.

Like any persuasive argumentation, it’s not like there aren’t grains of truth sprinkled throughout. But the core drive to expose the hidden reasons behind everything and a refusal to take people at their word and accept sincerity ultimately does not come from a place of truth finding, but cope.

If by recent, you mean in 2016, then sure that’s recent in terms of 5000 years of Chinese history.

They are also shielded from any losses. The stock price is meant to reflect the market consensus on the net present value of all time-discounted future cashflows. If you feel the stock will certainly gain in the future, you should purchase the stock now and if enough people believe that, the stock now will reflect the future gain.

It's the move to renewables that's causing this. In a steady state industry, the majority of your revenue goes into investing in the next generation of infrastructure. Dying industries get a temporary injection of profit as your future investments decrease faster than your decline in cashflows.

Additionally, there's an incentive to invest this windfall profit into unrelated industries to diversify in preparation for the end of your primary revenue stream.

When I'm a decision maker, I tell people there are two types of conversations we could be having and it's absolutely essential that we're both clear which one we both think we're having:

1. There's a piece of information you know which, you believe, if I knew it, it would cause me to change my decision

2. We are operating from the same world of facts but if you were in my shoes, you would choose to make a different decision because of a different in priorities/values/attitude/etc.

I think "disagree and commit" has been abused to excuse a litany of absolutely heinous behaviors in tech but my most charitable interpretation of that philosophy is that if we're both in agreement that we're having conversation #2, then the only actionable steps forward are to either agree to change who the decision maker is in the moment (which should only ever be done in the rarest of circumstances) or you need to acknowledge that you've been heard, I disagree and you need to commit.

IMO, one of the more toxic but often under addressed traits for someone in the team is them wanting all of the power of a decision maker with none of the responsibility. They will spend their time endlessly dissecting how "bone headed" the choices by management are and how we're "obviously ruled by incompetents" but when asked to take on any of the mantle of responsibility to fix any of the issues they see, they instinctively shy away because they're afraid of being judged as harshly by others as they judge.

My more radical belief is that the easiest default path for any team to go down is to say that it's the leader's job to make sure everybody on the team is ok with the decision but that this is an anti-pattern and it's actually up to the subordinates to develop the emotional maturity to understand that decisions will sometimes not go their way and the course charted might be completely baffling or insane to them but if you want that never to happen, then you should be the decision maker.

But the root of making this a successful culture has to be a consistent and mature retro process which is astonishingly hard to pull off which is why it's so rare. The retro is the proper time to judge whether decision making ability is being placed in the right hands or not:

* Did the decision meet, exceed or fall short of our expectations?

* Did it fall short because something within the control of the company/team or outside of the control?

* If inside the control, was there some piece of missing information, which, when revealed in retrospect, would have changed the decision?

* Was the information obtainable at the time? Why didn't we obtain it? Are there changes to the process we should make to learn from this for next time?

The best we can hope for is not perfect decision makers, it's people who can run an effective retro process, learn from their mistakes and steadily increase the quality of their decisions over time. Inability to do that should be the primary reasons someone is removed from their decision making role.