tboyd47

Touche

If not "the majority", then a proportion conceivably large enough to affect the polymarket results.

Not true. The majority of people who actually believe Jesus will return are Muslims who believe he will oversee an earthly kingdom for 7 years. The world doesn't end with that event.

Then how do you explain the triple-B thing?

Is it weird to anyone else that Trump chose to name his everything-but-the-kitchen-sink bill with the same 3 letters that Biden did?

Big Beautiful Bill

Build Back Better

It's almost like these guys are working together behind the scenes!

> a sub-$20,000 (after federal incentives) electric vehicle

Buried the lede, didn't we?

Net neutrality is not a thing there and telcos usually offer free GBs of FB/TikTok access.

Fascinating look at how AI actually reasons. I think it's pretty close to how the average human reasons.

But he's right that the efficiency of AI is much worse, and that matters, too.

Great read.

My understanding is that typed languages like Haskell and Rust are even easier with vibe coding than untyped.

Pretty decent list.

One conflict that defines the US today is information and psychological warfare between the ruling classes and citizens. The film that best illustrates this reality is 12 Monkeys.

Then you can be first.

Just anecdotally, I've found the recommendations of AI in interpersonal and social areas to have a sociopathic bent. For example, AI tends to recommend indirect ways of influencing others, i.e. nudging and slow-walking people to a desired outcome instead of just being straight up and forthcoming. I've also found heavy AI users to act that way.

The straightforward, blunt answer is that the financial economy depends on having a class of high-earning people who are on the hook for paying a lot of interest and unable to get out of it.

Very interesting. I didn't know that!

Why? I think it sounds cool. Are you embarrassed that it doesn't sound "corporate" enough?

The common sense approach to intermediary liability is what was already in place before the CDA turned everything upside-down. If you're an intermediary, there's a trade-off to be made. Either exercise creative license in your mediation of user communications, and be legally liable for that, or don't, and stay free of liability. I think that makes a lot of sense, and would have been totally fine on the internet, and was totally fine until 1996. It allows for all the same business models that were growing and thriving until 1996. It didn't impede the economies of scale that were unfolding and continued to unfold. Then, in 1996, the internet began the process of de-linking, de-indexing, de-listing, shadow-banning, click-baiting, and pay-walling. And "communications decency" was definitely not achieved, either.

I rather think that the internet mostly sucks right now, and would be way better without Facebook, Twitter, Google, Insta, etc. With the exception of TikTok, which actually has a decent search function, all those companies are blatantly censoring and deleting real content left and right. So much that I have come to think that's actually their whole purpose. I rarely even use those services as it stands, with the exception of YouTube, which I just rip audio from and download to listen in the car. Guess what, it's not rocket science to host an audio file. With AI, even Google is mostly useless, returning only a few dozen results, if that. There really isn't even an internet anymore except for places like HN. Kill Big Tech dead and let people find each other again.

You could just as easily turn that back on the pro-230 crowd. Can't innovate without Section 230? Excuses.

In fact, it's easier to make the case against Section 230 because an internet actually did exist before Section 230 and was fairly decentralized.

EFF is supported by Big Tech and Section 230 definitely does protect Big Tech and makes their entire business model possible.

Meetings are mostly counterproductive. Everyone knows that and any good manager will aggressively eliminate them for you.

As for agile ceremonies, some of them are needed for smooth operation of the team. Some of them are pure fluff. A good manager will know the difference and make real-time adjustments to the process to find the balance. A team of 7 doesn't need to spend more than 4 hours a week in meetings.

Back-and-forth is a result of poorly worded AC or people not reading the AC. Sometimes it can be avoided, sometimes not.

You just need to understand that in corporate jobs, you're on a team. Everyone works for a paycheck just like you, so there's a social give-and-take that must take place.

There's a sound you can make like an /f/ by pressing your lower row of teeth against your top lip and blowing. That one. (It sounds basically the same as /f/).

Let's say you have 40 chickens that lay 1 egg per day. Egg prices are $5 a dozen. You tell me.

I tend to think Section 230 is what caused this, and repealing it can unravel everything back to how it was in 1996. Yet people act so protective over it.

Jealousy is a major problem with millennials on down.

> "My youngest told me what oobleck is the other day. It is something which can behave like a solid or a liquid. I couldn't believe my seven year old taught me that."

That sounds exactly like the kind of thing that you might learn from a seven-year-old.

> Laura often shares her views on TikTok and says she has people who don't agree with her own parenting habits, but the mum-of-two is undeterred about what strangers think of her choices. "They are my kids. I can parent them how I want," she adds.

I do appreciate that they're not embarrassed to say that they do what all parents, everywhere, already do. It's sort of silly that legions of doctors, psychologists, and researchers still find it necessary to turn up in articles like this to browbeat parents about this topic when their advice is clearly not being heeded by any segment of the public and hasn't been for decades. It's as if these experts have zero awareness of how their advice is received.

80% accuracy.

You mean the young people now on Rednote complaining that they can't buy groceries?

I'm not opposed to that in principle. Baby steps.

Crisis? Yes. But will they stop showering the children with gadgets? No.

Nice one. You made me stop and think.

I was thinking about condensing my thoughts into a post, but I'll make one point on the issue of premiums. In the article, it says the cost of insuring a family of four is $25,000 a year. That sounds accurate to me.

I know from experience (being self-employed for a period of time and having to figure this all out myself) that if your family is healthy, you can replace all 4 full-term plans with 4 short-term plans and pay about $4,000 a year for the same coverage. The only difference, really, is that your insurance coverage ends after one year and you have to apply for it again. This used to be seen as risky, but with the ACA, someone will always be forced to insure you. So, it's not the same anymore.

That's not even all we could collectively do to solve this problem. Just imagine if all the healthy people in America just did that. I know, there aren't many healthy Americans left. And a lot of people have health insurance as part of their benefits package.

But many of those people are paying their dependents' insurance out of pocket. So, someone on a full-term plan could switch all his dependents to short-term and save about $5k per year per person. And it doesn't cause any noticeable difference to someone's coverage.

Imagine if only 1 million healthy Americans went from full-term to short-term. The health insurance industry would lose 5 billion dollars of income a year. That's not huge for a $500B industry, but it's not nothing. Corporate America sits up and starts paying attention to what's going on at ANY loss of revenue.

This is not insurance advice, but just thinking out loud. Verify everything yourself, but my point is that there's a lot everyday Americans could do to hurt these companies in their wallets. We just need to come together, share ideas, and trust ourselves and each other more than nameless, faceless companies.

Here's a goalpost for you: a healthy person should not spend more than $2,000 a year, total, on any health care related expenses. Even that number is ridiculous. But it's probably about half of what people are paying. If we all focused on that, and helped each other achieve that totally achievable goal, we'd change a lot about this rotten system.