tengbretson

The idea that we might already have an optimal system but that it requires the sacrifice of feeling mild discomfort for a day or two is unfathomable for some people.

Which one to make permanent gets you a different answer based on what edge of a time zone you're on. The obvious move is to further subdivide the timezones at the :30 mark and make one half permanent standard and the other half standard -0:30

It's a shame that LLMs took off at the exact same time humanity entered it post-literate phase.

I really want to see this tested on HDPE. A simple, reliable adhesive for polyethylene could be a game changer.

Yeah. Just think about how much smaller of an apartment they could be living in.

3090s are still selling at damn near their release MSRP.

Your code appears to have a bug where if the arrow keys trigger a change of direction twice in a single frame interval, it can mistakenly send the snake back on itself.

It is hard to evaluate the model performance of Composer 2.5 when Cursor's harness is so awful compared to the others on the market.

I don't disagree with any of the major gripes people have with orms and I find SQL to be much cleaner in a lot of circumstances.

That being said, if orms didn't force you to explicitly define your domain models about 60% of developers would simply never do it. And you would see differently structured, ad-hoc interfaces defined all over the code base completely entangled with whatever action they are trying to perform.

ORMs being a forcing function for domain modeling is enough benefit for me that it outweighs all of their obvious limitations.

If I had $300k going through my bank account every year I really think I would have noticed by now.

>it costs $1200000 to raise baby

What exactly are you planning to do with all that money anyway? Consume things?

I've never bought a sticker like that.

Does automated fraud detection not replace the work of human auditors? Do these large machines automate tasks? If you believe automating human labor is an evil, then I hate to break it to you, your in hell's chatroom. "Software is eating the world" was published 15 years ago. What did you think that meant?

That assumes that a value-judgement can be optimally made with intelligence alone.

> Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines??

Say, you wouldn't happen to write software for a living, would you?

I suspect this is sarcasm but seriously. Craigslist has floundered and now Meta/Facebook Marketplace is dominating the private buying/selling space. Is that not at least $500M of harm?

Everyone on this site has been cashing checks building the job eating machine for years. The concern is only pouring out now that it may not need us anymore.

You have to admit-- it is interesting that all of this media, that was made during a time when there were standards and morals, has painted such a clear picture of what you now expect life to be like.

In the 10 years prior to like 2023, any new large scale data center build-out was explicitly for serving more ads. Meanwhile, now that we have a new tech that's literally solving unsolved math problems, we're suddenly doomers. Why?

This is going to have so many api keys stored in it.

> I, unlike you, live in a democracy and expect the government to not send goons to intimidate opponents.

How are those two concepts actually related or linked in any way?

I'm not even sure if I disagree with the conclusion, but I feel pretty safe disregarding the words spoken in front of a slide profoundly declaring "UX + DX = AX"

Is this inspired by the old famo.us work?

"Do as much as possible with AI" and "Make sure you're actually accomplishing something with your AI usage" are obviously compatible directives.

To be fair to the swimmers, it looks like they used a ridiculously slow pool for the competition.

> That path, junior to mid to senior, isn't just a career ladder. It's the mechanism by which the industry reproduces its own expertise. It's how knowledge transfers.

Neat.

Today, sure. In 30 years I wouldn't expect to be able to retire with less that $50 million in savings.

> Well for a start it pressurises asset holders to sell their assets.

To whom are the selling? The buyers would be only those that can make efficient enough returns to offset this tax due to their existing systemic advantages, like economies of scale or regulatory lobbying. This would accelerate consolidation.

> But the point isn't to increase stakeholdership so much as to stop privileging stakeholders with very low effective tax bills relative to mere workers

At this point I think there is ample evidence that policy in this country does not move forward without the consent of these so-called privileged stakeholders. If you take that as a given, why would you support handing these people an economic machine gun to point at your future self?

I'm not disputing the claim that few people are able to save and invest into having a stake in the means of production.

However, if your goal is to increase stakeholdership, how would a policy that explicitly disincentivizes that behavior fix anything?

> The math doesn't math for someone on the other extreme end of the spectrum who has zero savings or investments and obtains all his income from labor: To him, a N% wealth tax = 0% income tax for all N. Those with -some- savings are somewhere in the middle.

Productivity comes from labor AND assets though. You need the farmer and the tractor. Why would we create a tax system that encourages people to divorce themselves from having a stake in the means of production?