tech_ken

> Car debt is terrible. But many people can’t get car debt, because many banks won’t write a $3,000 car loan, much less to someone with unsteady income. The bottom quintile often can’t even reach the $1,000 car - it’s hard to get out of the cycle where you can’t get a job because you don’t have a car. When people wave off Waymo or bus lanes or bike lanes because car culture is fine, they mean it works fine for them.

Banger post. My first car was a $1200 Geo Prism that I bought through the mechanic shop at the gas station up the street. It was older than my (younger) brother; got a good 5 years out of it before the transmission literally fell apart on Rt 2.

> I would burn my stake to the ground if it meant 1% higher chance of not dying to an LLM

Then why aren't you? If you genuinely believe this then industrial sabotage seems both ethical and achievable (to me anyways).

It’s wild to me that the US tries to resolve labor issues with immigration control rather than just having good unions. Back in the 80s we decided we wanted free commerce at the expense of all else. Well guess what, that means you’re competing with the global labor pool. This shit is like trying to have your cake and eat it to; we want only the upside of the global neoliberal order, and try our damndest to outsource all its downsides.

I like having both :)

Idk I think it's kind of neat

I think there's a very interesting history to be written/read about the emergence of the persona of 'founder'. I'm seeing it all over the place these days (alt. 'entrepeneur' or 'changemaker', the second of which really grates on me). It feels (to me) very much like 'small business owner' or 'the kids' or something: an idea or prototype of a person who is to be managed and possibly even produced by society. Not saying this in a critical way, I think every era has it's various typologies of 'person in society', but this one seems kind of unique in some interesting ways; very much a product of the last ~50 years of US history.

edit: I'll say that in my personal opinion the critical thing a founder needs is a strong internal locus of control. I feel that this is also an important product of a liberal arts education, so I see some natural alignment. I worry about the degree to which the 'total university' strips 18-22 year olds of important rites of development: learning to feed for yourself, find housing, meet friends organically (as opposed to because you share a dorm), etc. I could see a more pared down, "education-mostly" school in a large city being an interesting avenue for new models of university.

> Lots of people are building fantastic Tools or pulling down million dollar salaries without groking the precise representation of a single weight.

I'll borrow my response from a far greater applied mathematician than myself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oNgyUAEv0Q

Oh yeah I absolutely agree that there's lots of greenfield for relative newcomers to find some big improvements! I'm just saying that reasoning about 'best practices' in terms of what works for something like a CPU is missing some important and relevant differences.

But in the case of CPU architecture there are SOME people who understand how things work 100%, and they've built and vetted abstractions/mental models that enable other engineers and scientists to have that kind of mixed shallow/deep understanding in a way that works. On the side of LLMs we're still lacking an expertise which could flawlessly explain how these things operate; the abstractions that we're using are instead derived inductively and are totally unvetted.

Developing an intuition about high dimensional systems is pretty different from understanding the character of some specific point on a 1e9+ dimensional manifold of parameters, in my professional opinion (setting aside all the degrees of freedom that come from the structure of the thing). Sure one can understand generic principles like the curse of dimensionality, but truly groking how an LLM works is basically an open problem as far as I'm aware. I'm not saying there's no benefit for amateurs to study how LLMs work, but let's be realistic about how far mere intuition can truly take anyone in this space.

> it makes me wonder what more democratic, free market companies would be like.

I was wondering the same after PRW lol. Recently I had the chance to ask a friend of mine who worked in Google Infra (years ago) if they had ever tried to 'liberalize' their infrastructure planning; something like having internal business units bid on space, power, and compute instead of distributing it top-down. He said that yes, this was actually something like their original operating model, and the outcome was that YouTube basically bought up every piece of hardware in the company and then leased them out to other verticals at a profit.

I'd honestly recommend checking out the People's Republic of Walmart; it's a super short read and anything I say would be basically a warmed up rehash of whatever I remember from it.

Basic point is just that operations research/supply chain management was heavily developed by the USSR to support the central economy and now it's used by every major retailer (among others) to manage supply chains that are massively larger than anything the USSR ever got close to.

Back when I read "Cybernetic Revolutionaries" I followed it up with "People's Republic of Walmart" and came away with a bit of a different conclusion to your point 1. IMO lots of US-based hyperscalars are managing what are effectively command economies, and it's allowed them to ex. scale their infrastructure so aggressively these last ~2 years.

Oh duh

Finally I'll be able to properly follow JJK season 2

> It's an abstraction, not an error.

Extending an abstraction beyond its expressive capabilities is an error IMO.

Right but “upgrading to the next level” is exactly the type of cognitive error that I’m against, it’s forward-looking Whig history. There is no “levels” of civilization, there’s only the arrangements we have now and the ones that will occur in the future. Maybe those arrangements will have different pros and cons than we have now, maybe they’ll have more sophisticated engineering practices, but there’s no objective “development score” that is being maximized it’s just more humanity.

Tech development != tech tree, history is nonlinear and ecological. Linear, unlockable "tech trees" are an ahistorical fantasy necessary to make some video games fun and digestible. Applying them to the real world is like trying to win a war by replicating the Battle of Helm's Deep or something.

From the article: > We said criticality in 2026, electricity production in 2027, and power to the warfighter in 2028.

Are there any other examples of land-based militaries using nuclear power? Seems kind of like since they can't talk about the energy transition or w/e this has to be a military thing instead.

> moving up the tech tree of civilization

Life isn't Civ 6, there is no tech tree to climb.

It's more of an engineering call than something that can be purely determined from inductive reasoning. I think most engineers working in the space would say "both" are needed, but partisans exist on both sides.

I think there’s a difference between full-on “bullying” and what I’d call “blunt criticism”. I think bullying requires an intent to silence or otherwise coerce through fear. Blunt criticism is more about skipping the niceties and saying it plainly, and accepting that your subject might get offended as a result. Calling someone “tacky” is way more in the blunt criticism camp I think. It’s certainly not “nice”, but there’s no way that I read this blog article as trying to change Mark Zuckerberg’s mind through fear. Nobody is getting pilloried for being tacky, and tackiness can even be repositioned as desirable through the lens of nostalgia or similar.

> The government is going to suck at funding the right things

I'm pretty sure you have this totally backwards. People who study scientific development seem to think that the government is actually a really effective funder of research, and covers gaps that would never be addressed by private industry. See for example:

* https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-research-universities-r...

* https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/07/government-fun...

* https://www.americanscientist.org/article/%E2%80%9Cwhy-are-w...

I can think of a few angles that might have pushed them towards gas, mainly (a) they wanted on-demand generation cap, (b) they didn't want to get into the batteries game at the volume they'd require, or (c) they didn't want to deal with securing the space needed to produce 2.6GW of solar. Also yeah they're definitely not price-sensitive, any of the hyperscalars is more than happy to pay extra to get exactly what they want.

edit: for example that EIA list of new solar projects you linked indicates that the largest battery installations going up in '26 are all ~500MW, and that there are only four of them (of that size). I think the energy intensity of a multi-GW datacenter is the main reason that they're not going for solar here.

> Starship will bill NASA 1/20th what SLS does

Is that before or after the program achieves profitability?

Because the buyer is the one monopolizing industries and stripping them for parts

> Selling labor for money is the exact same transaction as walking into Walmart and buying a banana.

In the same comment you say that the government has to help guarantee that Walmart won't exploit you in this banana purchase transaction by outlawing price gouging and monopolization. If labor is the same type of transaction, it stands to reason that certain types of employment can be exploitative, despite the 'voluntary nature' of the transaction. Is your issue with the 'Uber exploits their contractors' framing simply based in the fact that Uber has not broken any labor laws?

Since you're having trouble following me I'll give a quick summary here. You initially said:

> if all these drivers are getting horribly exploited why are they doing it?

My point is simply that this is crap reasoning: people voluntarily participate in exploitative interactions all the time if they lack genuine alternatives.

> When we talk about labor negotiations, that word should indicate theres no exploitation happening

So in a world where no labor negotiation is happening, is exploitation possible? If Uber drivers had no legal recourse to form a union (or no avenue to otherwise participate in genuine negotiation with their employer), would it be fair to say that they might be in an exploitative employment relationship?

> Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.

Personally I don't feel that this precludes exploitation taking place. Exploiting someone is taking advantage of their hard circumstances or lack of alternatives to unethically profit (in the usage that I'm familiar with). For example I would consider hiding fare pricing breakdowns from employees and consumers, so that you can leverage their lack of information to increase your profit share, to be 'exploitative'; particularly if you hold a virtual monopoly on the taxi market in an area. For an example outside the gig-work world I'd point to price-gouging as another type of 'voluntary' exploitation; consumers may be 'consenting' to pay extremely elevated prices, but if they have no meaningful alternative and genuinely require what is being sold then it's not really 'consent' so much as 'resignation'. IMO true consent requires genuine options, not just that you signed your name on the dotted line.

> Insisting they know better for someone else

Well it's the drivers themselves who voted to join the union, so presumably there's something they want to see changed. No need to speak for people who've already found their voice.

Not sure why you want to bring race into this, people from all backgrounds have the right to free association and deserve labor representation.

> No doubt good for them, but I am curious how this is realistically going to work.

Seems like kind of a pilot-program nationwide TBH. The article links to another article last year about an MA ballot measure which made it possible for gig-work drivers to unionize in the first place (since independent contractors aren't covered by the NLRB at a federal level). It seems that the state labor board intends to sponsor the negotiation process, and per the ballot measure text would be responsible for figuring out what to do if negotiations broke down. Summary of the question is here, if you're interested (full text of the law is linked there): https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/publications...