svnt

I’m trying to understand the distinction you are making. Pure altruism exists in animal communities. It is evolutionary. Are you contrasting belief systems with karma with Christianity?

Complication from pregnancy is the leading cause of death in 15-19 year old girls, and second in 10-14, only because many of them are not yet able to conceive. We have excellent data on this.

Later marriage/first pregnancy is clearly a good thing.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health/pregnanc...

Childhood pregnancy is the leading cause of death in teenage girls.

We can say the factory is better.

This is not a one-off study. There is a long record of similar studies showing that the number of years of education a girl receives delays marriage, and while longer schooling delays marriage longer, it is not just because girls are busy. Schools inherently provide female social support, and education provides increased self-reliance.

This is pretty easy to reason through: if a girl knows nothing about the world, a safe place for her to be is with someone who knows more. If a girl knows how to function in the world on par with a boy/man, or at least has visibility into a future where she can, there is no longer that fear/dependence cycle locked in.

eg How Much Education Is Needed to Delay Women's Age at Marriage and First Pregnancy? https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/...

The power of education to end child marriage - UNICEF DATA https://data.unicef.org/resources/child-marriage-and-educati...

But this only makes profit the root goal of a certain class of economy, not the actual root goal.

These issues align with what I found, and make this other comment more explainable:

> Having trouble understanding the final line:

> > Also, those that claimed this article is ironically a casualty of it’s own complaint are 100% right, Kudos.

> Why would the article be a casualty of its own complaint?

The author probably sourced the article using AI; the sources don’t quite align in the way they often don’t when sourced by AI.

My argument seemed pretty clear to me. Altruism, which is generally defined as helping others without expectation of benefit, is not at all specific to Christianity, despite that being your impression.

I would be happy to discuss the topic in more detail but your responses have so far consisted of telling me I don’t understand what you’re saying, but without clarifying your position further.

There is a history of international legal action as a result of them violating privacy laws, nevermind being privacy friendly:

France’s data protection regulator (CNIL) fined Google €325 million in 2025 for displaying ads between Gmail messages without consent and for placing cookies during account creation without consent. This is on top of prior fines of €100 million in 2020 and €150 million in 2021 for cookie violations, so this is a documented pattern.

The Dutch government commissioned Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) on Office/Microsoft 365. The 2018 report found Microsoft collected 23,000–25,000 different telemetry events from Office and called it “large scale and covert collection of personal data”

The FTC went after Zoom in 2020. The complaint alleged that since at least 2016, Zoom misled users by claiming “end-to-end, 256-bit encryption” when it actually provided a lower level of security, and Zoom saved the cryptographic keys that would allow it to access the content of customers’ meetings.

You could also just go read their own policy documents, or ask AI to explain what is possible under those to you if they are too dense.

I understand, and as I said I would take the money for the cause, but I still don’t agree. This kind of passive acceptance of shallow behavior is disappointing to me. We should expect more from humanity.

It isn’t an insult to say you’re speaking about something you’re clearly not educated in when you clearly aren’t educated in it. A lot of people might take offense I guess, but an insult would be directed at you personally, not something you could easily rectify.

The rest of your comments confirm what I said. I am really unclear how you think I have misinterpreted your comment.

> I made no attempt to dismiss or justify any of it.

> I don't think it's the conspiracy theory that you're making it out to be.

Which is it then?

Your argument is that since it is common in a bubble to make circular deals, there is no conspiracy. But you seem to suggest that people committing tens of billions of dollars aren’t looking any further down the pipeline than the name on the receiving bank account? Have you ever been anywhere near a large deal?

This is just a no-true-Scotsman defense of reasoning. We were talking about inferring intent.

If someone recorded the inner monologue of human decision-making, would it look like a logician’s workbook? No, I don’t think it would. People like to pretend they are rational.

Altruism predates humans, but we are the best at it, and this behavior long predates Christianity. That you associate altruism distinctly with Christianity just discloses massive gaps in your experience and/or education.

Who cares whether the people who control the majority of the planet’s capital actually care about other people or just the preservation of their image?

I do. I will accept the donation either way, but in terms of so much else, I fucking do.

This is the big constraint:

> 2) Range hardcapped at ~1m due to how ultrasound works, you can't centralize detection. Their answer is to give everyone in the household a wearable receiver, which is eeeeeeeh idk, doesn't look consumer-friendly to me.

Sure yes if you could do this with an always-listening smartphone or smartwatch that would be workable, but even then it constrains it to an occupant-activity detector.

Fixing that would require in the best case prompting an app install when visitors arrive. And still it is deaf to any other changes such as a door closing in the wind.

All possible, but feels several technosocial cycles away. Interesting to think about anyway.

This lack of understanding is a you problem, not a them problem. Your definitions for these terms are too imprecise.

Look at any recent CoT output where the model is trying to infer from an underspecified prompt what the user wants or means.

It is generally the first thing they do — try to figure out what did you mean with this prompt. When they can’t infer your intent, good models ask follow-on questions to clarify.

I am wondering if this is a semantics issue as this is an established are of research, eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.10871

> This is not a model problem. The vision agent was reasoning about a rendered page and had no signal that the page wasn't showing everything.

> To make the comparison apples-to-apples, we rewrote the vision prompt as an explicit UI walkthrough, naming the sidebar items, tabs, and form fields the agent should interact with at each step. Fourteen numbered instructions covering the navigation the agent had failed to figure out on its own.

This is a model problem, though. Because the model failed to understand it could scroll, you forced it to consume multiples of the tokens. Could you come up with an alternative here?

Do you know what the vision model was trained on? Because often people see “vision model” and think “human-level GUI navigator” when afaik the latter has yet to be built.

> If you meant there is a case where reducing the network latency […] is actually a negative then I'd love to hear more about it

That is exactly what parent did:

> they are doing an insane level of complexity to shave off ~100 ms

The downside is everything they had to do to achieve it, and maintaining that capability going forward, when the product can tolerate much more. It is the definition of premature optimization.

It just maybe isn’t at a level where it is relevant in your argument/decision space in IT.

> code created by some programmer is understood by that programmer

was at some point understood by that programmer, at least for a few months, before they moved on to something else and forgot important context and detail, or left the company

This isn’t specific to AI this is just the dark arts startup valuation playbook. AI extension of gaming the metric “what is the ratio of “active” accounts to validated human daus”

Is that really a moat though or something like a firehose of gasoline?

Even if you did write it all, unless you are regularly in all of it (which sounds like a horrible job to me), or it is rather small, in my experience you will be at some point trying to git blame some section of code you don’t understand only to find the finger pointed at your ghost.

> Google StreetView data is probably sufficient.

This is an extraordinary claim. Self driving cars just need 15 ft grid panoramic images that are months or years stale? What experience are you basing this claim on?

Who do you attribute the spiritual attack to?

Can I ask, and this is not judgement but anthropological curiosity, did you recently decide (or were you recently forced) to leave tech?

I interview people about this kind of thing and have noticed a trend.

> Looked at in this light, infinity is a labor-saving device to eliminate special cases, at a potential cost in soundness.

Or it is something that clearly conceptually exists, and makes simplistic reductionist viewpoints impossible to prove, which frustrates those who attempt to extend them into twisted metaphysical conjectures.

Which is not different in kind from “we use your source code to improve our products” and is functionally identical to “we own your output because you use our editor.”

How do people continually fall for this. Refusing to look at the playbook that has been run time and time again and then getting offended when it is too late.

My point is that in established cultures there are expectations around how these situations are handled, and what you expect people to do is specific to the culture. A single disapproving grandmother can put a stop to it.

That is why it breaks down — once it is discarded in a melting pot the cultural expectations are unclear and it seems you’re at least initially dependent on the state or mob dynamics.