tshaddox

I didn't say that it would increase RAM prices. I said "may in practice cause RAM to remain unaffordable."

That's actually the point. Opposing vibes are just as easy to utter as the initial vibes.

Ah, well that must be it then. The stench of culture war was pretty strong in the original comment, so I'm not surprised, although I'm a bit disappointed to see it so front and center on HN (especially given that it was set off by a tiny mostly irrelevant mention in an Apple press release)!

Isn't that a pretty well-established genre going back at least to the 1980s? I'm pretty out of date on modern games, but I do remember Heavy Rain being widely acclaimed 15 years ago. There's gotta be something else that explains the vitriol against this new game.

The stock market crash caused by AI companies halting their planned build outs may in practice cause RAM to remain unaffordable.

I've never heard of Mixtape, but I'm surprised to see such a weirdly contemptuous post about a video game get so much traction on HN. At a glance, critical review aggregators are showing 80+ on this game. Is there some drama or culture war issue here that I'm missing?

Okay, but I would also ask “why does Claude say that its name is Claude?”

For what it’s worth, “race to the bottom” typically refers to a scenario that we absolutely do not want as a consumer. We do want a highly competitive market that drives prices down, but “race to the bottom” specifically refers to a scenario where firms compete by minimizing quality, regulatory oversight, consumer/labor/environmental protection, etc.

The plan is that he (along with a small number of other people) will already own everything. The only reason he currently wants proles to buy things from Amazon is that he has not yet achieved what he considers sufficient ownership of the world.

The people who advocate this expect to be part of a very small group of humans who own literally everything, so they don’t share your concern.

Acting morally should obviously be the thing that law is designed to incentivize.

Law isn’t code. There’s no mechanical decision procedure. That’s both impossible and undesirable.

It's a continuum, and things very low on the intelligence continuum might not be referred to as intelligent in everyday usage. But many calculators are Turing complete and can thus clearly perform computations that I would consider intelligent. The basic algorithms used by simple calculators to perform arithmetic would be extremely low on the intelligent continuum.

I think I mostly disagree with this. "Technical compliance" is not and should not be the thing that a legal system is designed to incentivize, and should not be the criterion for "perfect rule of law."

I don't think "intelligence" needs to carry all the intrigue and woo of related words like "consciousness" or "creative." If we just use "intelligence" to mean "the ability of a system to solve problems that are new to the system," that pretty much matches the dictionary definition and normal usage of the term. We don't need to touch messy questions like "is there something it's like to be a bat" to conclude that bats exhibit intelligence when they navigate long distances and hunt for food.

Clearly you need to consider how general the capabilities and use cases of the technology is. The most general-purpose technologies will always have obvious use cases for police states and other bad groups or people.

Politics in the broadest sense is just any decision-making process where a single decision affects multiple people and those people don't all agree on which decision should be made.

Large barriers to entry are anathema to competitive markets, so the conclusion here is still that firms are benefitting from the lack of a competitive market.

Alaska wasn't a state yet, but it was part of the United States and thus federal law applied there.

Moreover, Alaska passed its own alcohol prohibition laws before the nation-wide prohibition.

Earlier this year they literally publicized changing their immediate goal from Mars to the Moon.

I like the general concept, but I think framing it as a small number of discrete tokens isn't quite right. I'd treat the whole thing in terms of debt and risk. Using "non-boring" technology [0] is really just subtracting some amount from your balance. You don't want your balance to go too negative, but carrying some debt is sometimes fine. And some risky bets might turn out to have a huge ROI!

The amounts clearly aren't discrete. Writing your entire app on a new language runtime might be very risky (and also might have large potential ROI!), but choosing a new email provider might not be (random example, but presuming that you can swap out providers fairly easily).

[0] My bigger complaint is really about the vagueness of even deciding what is "boring." How does a new technology transition from being "non-boring" to being "boring"? Apparently that requires a lot of people to ignore this article's advice for a long time, until we collectively decide that those people have had good enough results to consider that technology "boring."

I don't think anything like a "general speed limit applied to experimentation" makes sense. In general we should move as fast as possible.

When there's a specific explanation why a specific experiment should move slowly (or even be prohibited), I respect that, but the explanation can't just be "we don't know all the bad things that might happen as a result of this experiment." That's the precautionary principle, which I staunchly oppose.

What are these surprisingly large numbers you've seen? I thought that linear scan optimizations are typically reserved for pretty small maps, like dozens or maybe hundreds of elements.

It's possible to mistakenly think you've solved a problem when you've actually made the situation worse, of course, and that's just plainly a bad thing. It's important to be able to identify specific things which we thought were solutions but were actually new worse problems, and roll them back if possible. [0]

But that's not really what the hedonic treadmill refers to! The hedonic treadmill is referring to the fact that, when a problem is solved, the level of pleasure or happiness individuals experience reportedly quickly returns to the pre-solution baseline.

[0] Crucially, this must not be conflated with advocating a general slowdown or pause on attempts at progress. That's the civilizational death sentence.

Hedonic adaptation is a very good thing. Culture or technological stasis is a death sentence for civilization. Open-ended progress is the only chance civilization has to survive (and even that's not a guarantee).

There is an infinite sequence of future problems to be solved. Each time you solve a problem, you don't reduce the total number of future problems, but you are left with one or more better problems than you had before. It's a very good thing that, as soon as you get accustomed to having air conditioning, you start looking for the next problem to fix.

Advertising is and always has been a fundamentally adversarial relationship between the consumer and the publisher. Everyone knows that, with few exceptions, no one ever wants to see ads. So I guess I'm not sure why you're surprised that advertisers still want to show ads to people who would rather not see them. That's everyone.

> Eventually, this arms race ends with a computer vision model that looks at the screen, classifies visual elements as ads, and draws a rectangle over anything that looks like an ad.

Surely a better way to think of this is that a person's AI agent will simply find, via whatever means necessary, the information that the person is interested in. It's hard to imagine the person will still be operating on the old "pull" model where they deliberately visit a specific website or open a specific app.

With these health-tracker watches with weeklong battery life, and people leaving their watch on when they shower??

I'm perplexed how anyone would have trouble charging their smart watch 30-45 minutes per day, unless they have an unusual schedule like (near-constant travel). This is something I almost never think about or have issues with.

I mean it's just not true at all. We don't want police to torture people for information. We don't want police to detain people for questioning, even briefly, without reasonable suspicion. We don't want police to search people or their property without a warrant. And so on.