342 karma · joined March 31, 2020
You might think that you could merely escape this by getting of social media, but in reality it's in the physical world too. Every single advertisement is trying to create a void in the viewer, in an attempt to get you to purchase their product. Every billboard, every TV ad, every time you walk into a supermarket... Even if ads don't work on you 99% of the time, the 1% that filter through to your subconscious can really wreck you.
John D. Rockefeller might have been poor compared to our times, in the same way that Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan was. But they didn't have the constant reminder of all the ways they were lacking. The average Roman soldier was 5'5", and I doubt many of them felt short. I've heard stories of men getting leg-lengthening surgery to go from 5'10" to 6'0", which if you don't know is an agonizing procedure of slowly getting your bones pulled beyond their maximum ability to stretch, which takes weeks or even months to even get back to being able to walk.
The all-too-easy answer to this is to just say "Well, comparison is the thief of joy, so just don't compare yourself". But if you want to compete in the job marketplace, or to be considered on dating apps, or just in general to participate in society it's almost a necessity to compare yourself to your peers. Obviously we should all be like the Buddha and not be drawn to comparison but it's a hell of a lot easier to do that when you're the guy on top.
I don't think I've ever found a single person, in real life or online, who never compares themselves to another person. So we should accept that equality in status (and not just in pure-stuff) is an essential ingredient to a happy, functional society.
I tried to explain over and over again that I didn't think the question was very simple, that there could be at least 3 different answers depending on the context and that he would have to specify more. But he was so certain that it was simple that he didn't want to listen to any of my explanations. Eventually it came down to him trying to force me into saying either:
a. That I was too stupid to answer or even understand the question. b. Some false solution to the problem that I already knew wouldn't work with the reliability we needed.
From that point on, I was pretty damn sure that I didn't want to work with this coworker ever again, and I eventually left the company largely because of them (this obviously wasn't the only issue I had with them, or the company at large, but still it played a large role).
Many have said in this thread already that maybe we ought to expect that a ml approach in the next few months/years could be much better. I'm not so confident that it will happen so soon. Audio might end up being a much harder problem than visuals, for a variety of different reasons. Having the time domain built into the medium requires some concept of memory, and even modern neural nets seem to struggle remembering what they said before the most recent prompt.
Once again though, its not impossible. Just requires the right techniques and enough people focused on it.
1. Find a project at work that you are interested in, and move over to that.
2. Join a completely different team/org at work.
3. Join a completely different company, doing different types of work.
4. Join a socially responsible company, doing charity work.
5. Quit your job, and take a 6 month break. Don't think about work during that break.
6. Go see a therapist for at least a couple of months.
7. Improve your diet and exercise routines, potentially with professional help from a trainer or a nutritionist.
8. Begin a treatment plan using drugs w/ the approval of a psychiatrist.
9. Begin a treatment plan using drugs without the approval of a psychiatrist, YOLO mushrooms time.
10. Leave your job, and move into an entirely different industry. Go start a farm.
11. Take a trip to a country with a radically different way of life, to gather some perspective.
12. Take some daily time to do something away from a computer - like join a pottery club.
13. Read some philosophy books on the meaning of life. Do some introspection based on what you read.
14. Pick a goal at work, like getting a promotion, and figure out what you need to do that.
I want to also offer a quick theory of burnout. Burnout is caused by 3 different sources:
1. Plain old overwork. Too much on-call is not good for your soul.
2. Mission doubt. If you begin to doubt the reason why you are doing something, you will get burned out.
3. Broken steering. If you feel that nothing you do actually is changing the situation, that you're unable to make meaningful progress in your work.
What I want to stress about this theory is that you don't need all three to have burnout. Some people think that taking an extended vacation is the cure to all burnout, because their theory only accounts for source 1, when you can have burnout from a job where you only work 20 hours a week. You might wish to first try and figure out which of these 3 sources seem like the cause for your burnout, and then which of the 14 options seem most appealing to you.
Minecraft RTX does suffer really badly with ghosting when you destroy a light source, but my intuition says that A-SVGF would fix that entirely.
That being said, some of the newest techniques, like ReSTIR PT (a generalized form) have only been published for a couple of months, so current games don't have that yet. But in 3-6 months I would start to expect some games go with a 100% RT approach.
Here's the real question to those of you who don't believe in quantum computing - what do you think that money should be invested in instead? VCs are supposed to try to maximize their returns in high-risk high-reward investments using their knowledge of technology to get an advantage. It doesn't seem like to me there are that many opportunities that aren't already saturated with cash. If quantum computing has a 10% chance of paying out, that's equivalent to the success rate of startups (on average).
If an entity manages to obtain a massive amount of wealth, far surpassing its own needs, and there is a definite need for that money elsewhere, then that is a policy failure.
The obvious example is a single person who's a billionaire - a person doesn't need a billion dollars for a house and some food. But it could also extend to a company, or even a subsection of the government. It's just in that case measuring the need becomes several orders of magnitude harder (what should an F-35 cost anyway?)
As far as definite need, the GP probably had these needs in mind: Healthcare, food, housing, and an uncontaminated environment. I think the US is failing in these aspects in such a big way that I would agree and say "billionaires are policy failures".
Suppose you lived in a universe where there was no fairness, ever. It was maximally unfair at all points and times. You would drink water and it would turn to sand in your mouth. You would wake up and spears would pierce your eyes. Every action you took to help ease your suffering would instead maximize it, in the most unfair way possible. That sounds like a description of hell to me. I would beg for death in such a universe.
Of course, what you actually mean is that you shouldn't care about fairness so much, you shouldn't "bend yourself out of shape" over it. Getting skipped over for a promotion isn't nearly as bad as burning in hell, obviously. If you don't whine about unfairness and instead just focus on your work, you might end up getting that promotion soon after anyways. In other words, it can be valuable to trade a little unfairness for a lot of "good stuff" (whatever exactly that means in the situation).
I think this might be true, but it sets a really bad precedent. The issue is not accepting unfairness when it is happening to you, but when it is happening to someone else. Imagine telling a coworker who thinks that they're being discriminated against due to their race that they should "accept the unfairness and just deal with reality". IMO they should NOT just learn to accept that. It is deeply unfair and unjust and cannot be worth whatever you get by being quiet.
Finally, it's definitely not how "everything" or even only all businesses work. There are plenty of businesses that are doing their best to promote fairly and honestly, it's just a really hard problem to solve. Maybe unfairness will always find a way to creep back in, that doesn't mean that you should just blindly accept it.
The entire point of these hosted password services is that they are a turnkey solution - I could give them to my mom, who knows nothing about technology, and trust that they work. I like using a turnkey solution myself even though I could self-host because I don't want to spend brain cycles on solving the "syncing passwords across multiple devices" issue.
I don't quite understand why Bitwarden even needs to have you login in order to access the passwords. Surely you could just have the salted+hashed passwords on device, and Bitwarden just syncs that data from device to device. If you work in an organization and need to revoke access, just change the password. No need to manage whether or not someone is logged in to Bitwarden.
Furthermore, the paper itself links to a github repository[2] with a list of papers that either imply or use an exponential advantage in quantum chemistry. Now would be a good time to mention that I am not an expert in chemistry, nor have I read the entirety of this list of papers so I am not in a position to go through each and every one to decide how generic their results are or what the limitations are. Perhaps all these papers have fundamental limitations that prevent it from being useful in normal chemistry, only in weird souped-up problems specifically devised for a quantum advantage.
Either way, this paper is by no means conclusive on the subject. There's a ton of more research to be done in multiple fields to know for sure.
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.02199.pdf [2] https://github.com/seunghoonlee89/Refs_EQA_GSQC
I don't mean to necessarily disagree with the general tone of what you're saying, though. I felt some of that while I was there.
For example, this post contains an address:
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/onision-james-gregory-jackson-...
Here is a post containing the IP of some user:
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/leonard-f-shaner-jr.9940/page-...
Here is a list of past addresses for someone:
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/russell-greer-just_some_dude_n...
With all of this, it's clear that if you're going to argue that stochastic terrorism even exists, you should believe that it is happening at Kiwi Farms. Incredibly personal, incredibly specific (doxxing), directed at marginalized people, and in a space full of people that are already predisposed to acts of violence.
Secondly, I hate how liberal thinkpiece authors can never lay the blame at the hands of the people using tech. If you google something as contentious as "Washington Times Antifa Evidence", and you don't even have the integrity to scroll down the page to see if there's any disagreement, then there is nothing Google can do to protect you from the conmen of the world.
Any attempt to "fact-check" will result in an extreme backlash, as conservative laypeople will rightly notice the liberal-slant, and conservative lawmakers will use that as an excuse to punish Google. It will likely be ineffective in changing people's minds, and it may result in serious costs to Google as a company.
Maybe if I have anything to add, it's that gamers already dislike cosmetics without any blockchain nonsense. Cosmetics hurt esports and other competitive gaming by messing with the trained instincts around color/silhouette, and thats before we talk about any actual pay to win mechanics.
Furthermore, I think putting on the hat of "productivity" can sometimes reveal unusual things. Like how a conversation with a friend is just repeating the same old dreary boring stuff, and if you put a little effort in you can have a more "productive" conversation.