JimmyBuckets

What is the relationship here? I searched by but I couldn't find details of what case this pertains to.

This person is being honest about how he feels about a hypothetical situation. I appreciate the humility of sharing a thought people might look down on and would be trivial to lie about. Also based on this article I would be surprised if he is not the type to show such kindness - if anything this reflection shows that such openness is not to be taken lightly, that it is special and should be appreciated as such. How wonderful then that is is so ubiquitous.

Top comment my whiskered friend.

The link from OP also has the map

That is unfair. The largest co2 producers are also large in size. I think 1km resolution is more than sufficient to identify the source of the majority of emissions - e.g. factories, power plants, buildings, etc. Even if the resolution is not fine-grained enough for definitive identification it reduces the scope to manageable size for more detailed investigations.

Yeah I usually dip in when I want to look at the space. But I am trying to include a more regular scan of the headlines to keep abreast of whats happening.

To be included in the top 1% you need a net worth of over a million. So what you said is untrue. The correct figure is something like top 10%

The American government gets that money from taxes. If wealthy people are using that wealth to avoid taxes and put the burden on to the worker then the worker is being hurt twice - first by the lost power in their vote, and second by paying an unfair share of public infrastructure costs.

It's like reverse clickbait with him

Who told you this? It's so obviously false.

It doesn't even make sense. I think you meant to say "efficiently" perhaps but even arguing that is an uphill battle - at most you could say that is true for some types of projects.

I agree with your overall position but I disagree on the first point.

Wealth is ownership, ownership is control of value. Allocating more (not all) value away from SaaS companies and into food security or education is a good thing and would make things better for everyone.

There are a couple of nuanced issues with what you are saying.

1. In our current political system, wealth translates into political power, which can (and is) used to change laws to secure more wealth - just look at the portfolio performance of members of US Congress. Democracy is about putting political power in the vote.

2. Many if not most of our important problems are beyond the ability of one person (or a small group) to tackle - climate change, food security, etc. Having wealth more distributed means that more economic participants are involved in deploying it, and thus greater predictive power per dollar spent.

The minimum entry requirement for top 1% inclusion is about 1 million dollars.

So your comment is just wrong.

Tell me you don't worry about money without telling me you don't worry about money

I would agree here if our political systems weren't vulnerable to capture by wealth. Inequality drives more inequality, it has to be counterbalanced by laws.

The majority of human civilisation has been feudal. We recently got democracy for everyone. We are not yet out of reach of our local civilisational attractor.

This comment is so out of touch with reality.

It matters because our political systems are influenced by the wealth. More wealth equals more political power in a system where political power is supposed to be assigned via democratic vote.

It also matters because wealth is not created in a vacuum. Elon Musk could not build his rockets unless his employees were educated by the public schoold system, and fuel trucks filling his rockets could use public roads, and 10,000 years of agriculture made it efficient for him to pay for his beef instead of having to go out and hunt an ox. Nobody owns anything but we all own everything.

It also matters because our tax systems are set up primarily to tax labour and not capital. So working people pay for the public infrastructure that wealth then sucks up.

Your privilege is showing my friend. If you were born in a favela in Brazil or on the streets in LA I guarantee you that you would not be making as much money as you are now. And when your mother dies from a preventable disease you may have a harder time dismissing wealth inequality.

Here are some attempts:

LBRY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBRY

BTT: https://www.kraken.com/learn/what-is-bittorrent-btt

For crypto there are some great telegram groups that aggregate stories into a feed:

e.g. https://t.me/onecryptofeed

This is the lamest place to do ragebait. Facebook is probably more fun.

I respect Ilya hugely as a researcher in ML and quite admire his overall humility, but I have to say I cringed quite a bit at the start of this interview when he talks about emotions, their relative complexity, and origin. Emotion is so complex, even taking all the systems in the body that it interacts with. And many mammals have very intricate socio-emotional lives - take Orcas or Elephants. There is an arrogance I have seen that is typical of ML (having worked in the field) that makes its members too comfortable trodding into adjacent intellectual fields they should have more respect and reverence for. Anyone else notice this? It's something physicists are often accused of also.

I think your definition of "understood" is too narrow and perhaps that is your challenge. People have been taking many of these substances (e.g. psilocybin, THC, DMT, etc.) for thousands of years. Their qualitative, long-term effects are extremely well understood by the cultures and peoples that use them. My assumption is that you are WEIRD (forgive me if I am wrong), and the tendency we have is to disregard any data that wasn't created in a Western lab.

You have beautiful way of writing. Do you have a blog?

Languages are not the same as generic sounds to the human brain. Title is clickbaity but I also think it more or less communicates the point of the article

This sounds like you haven't used one of these coding agents.

This comment seems like a rebuttal which is confusing to me because they are deeply related.

This makes me sad. Please don't speak to people like this. The small pieces of humanity that people sincerely share are about the only thing that it is worth living for. What a dark world we would live in when our public sphere is filled with insincerity. I can't infer anything about you from a single comment but it must be incredibly isolating and lonely to talk to you when you are in this mindset. I can see your good intentions but you have communicated a sadness and defensiveness that presents cynicism as truth.

I think it is unfortunate that you should pick examples of poor behaviour in our species and use it to justify your opinions. Pure, selfless love does exist. The fact people fail to live up to it at all times is an existentialist question. But the failure does not support what you are saying.

How we raise our children, the values we enshrine in our culture and the skills we prioritize are levers through which we can move substantially closer to a practical love-derived morality.

Saying that we haven't achieved something cannot be used as evidence of its impossibility, as much as we would like to.

I agree that in stressful moments people can fail to live up to an ideal. And in those cases it is useful to rely on rubrics. But the article in question is about the origin of morals. And thus I say again, the origin of morality, whether intuited, codified or otherwise, is love.

The main point is that love isn't an emotion. When love is present it can be felt in the body, but it also modifies thought.

I think this is premature. I think its more honest to say that it's an open question and that moral relativism is currently in vogue.

This is pithy but brittle and I believe ultimately wrong. For example, if I wrong someone I hate, and then with a gun to my head I am forced to apologize when I wouldn't otherwise, I am not being moral.