Unit327

Without knowing any of the specifics of nike, investors are chasing money losing AI with promises of 100000x growth in the next five minutes, not a manufacturer of physical products that perhaps actually make a profit every year.

People going vegan or going pure aktins or whatever have the most important thing in common, they are actually thinking about what they eat, reading labels and generally making conscious decisions about food.

Correlation is not causation, especially in a sample of 1, the plural of anecdote is not data etc etc. Protein is easy, just eat some beans and rice, tofu, tempeh etc. You can't just take the diet you had before and subtract things and expect it to work, you have to substitute. Make sure to get B12, D and maybe omega 3 and creatine either as supplements or fortified in foods, and get your levels checked every year or so.

I've been vegan for 15+ years, and I'm willing to say there are zero health benefits over a healthy omnivorous diet. The people who find one are misattributing it. It's not that vegan is healthier, just that what they were doing before was decidedly unhealthy. For a lot of people going vegan is the first time they actually think about what they eat, read labels etc, which is where most of the benefit comes from.

They aren't in the black at all, let alone "insanely" so. Maybe if they just did commercial launches on falcon 9, but instead they've been shoveling those "huge margins" straight back into r&d on starship etc.

I can just see the meeting where the apple developers pitched this. "Some of our users want to stare at their black rectangles for 18 hours a day but unfortunately have to take a break and stare out of the window because of motion sickness. How can we help them in order to drive up usage even more?"

There's probably a meeting going on somewhere inside google/apple right now to work out how to cure humans of the need for sleep.

"If agi and perfect humanoid robot slaves, then xyz". That's a motherfucking big "if".

The impacts haven't really been seen yet because Japan is still on the flat apex of the population curve, but the rollercoaster is about to start diving.

https://www.ipss.go.jp/pp-zenkoku/e/zenkoku_e2023/pp_zenkoku...

This argument gets trotted out every time but it doesn't convince me of anything. Yes, calling things out creates an incentive for people to hide them, but so what?

Setting aside the whole AI = bad argument, let's do a metaphor. Tax evasion is bad and unethical and you should call it out where you see it. But wait, that creates an incentive for people to hide it! So I'd better not call it out, it's best to just keep my mouth shut.

Anubis is one alternative, kinda sucks that we need to slow down the web for everyone a little bit though.

Anthropic have only scraped together a month of profitability by cooking the books. They have an extreme compute discount from spacex that only applies for the first couple of months of the deal. By pushing the costs down the road they can make themselves look good before IPO. Even they have admitted publicly though that they don't expect profitability to last.

That quote is not from the article and has nothing to do with the article, what is going on here?

I could spend 20 minutes coding in a headset but there's no way could I spend an hour doing it.

It also doesn't help that they probably sell tokens below cost.

Nethack is best played completely spoiled with the wiki open at all times. You'll miss the amazing interactions and stuff otherwise, and it is still challenging either way. It was basically made to be played by source divers in the days before wiki diving.

Savescumming is also just explore/wizard mode with more steps.

ssh nethack@us.hardfought.org

It has been updated, and there are also eu/au region servers.

2B ARR at what cost base?

A NAS is just an example, here's a better one; I love to use my old phones as wall mounted displays and controls for home assistant, or as remote music players plugged in to some speakers that I can hook into in music assistant. Some of my old phones are more than capable of this hardware wise but are locked to older versions of android and can't run anything built for a newer version, so they end up as ewaste intstead.

I think my next phone is going to be a fairphone or something for this reason.

Ignores the cost of model training, R&D, managing the data centers and more. OpenAI etc regularly admit that all their products lose money. Not to mention the fact that it isn't enough to cover their costs, they have to pay back all those investors while actually generating a profit at some point in the future.

AI doesn't have hopes and desires or something it would rather be doing. It has a utility function that it will optimise for regardless of all else. This doesn't change when it gets smarter, or even when it gets super-intelligence.

Encrypted data on the servers is only useful if your server is just dumb storage. I want the server to actually do something, e.g. serving media, running home assistant etc.

This sounds like the same behaviour from introducing fines for overdue library books or being late picking up children from day-care. It goes from a social olbigation or question ("Do I want to bother the day-care people by arriving late?" / "Do I want to bother this blogger and ask for their time?") to a financial transaction.

Get a room full of USA citizens:

"Put your hand up if you want more manufacturing in the USA."

"Ok thanks, hands down. Now put your hand up if you want to work in a factory".

There are many reasons why that you're dismissing with a wave of the hand. But regardless, we are both in agreement that sending robots right now is the wise decision.

It depends how you are defining "better". Much cheaper and safer sure, but also much slower and much more limited. If it was me making the decisions I'd still go with robots, but I wouldn't call them "better".

Apollo 17 astronauts drove roughly 12 miles in around 8 hours to get to a site and do some science. The curiosity rover's longest drive in a day is around 150 meters. If it drills a rock and encounters some difficulty, it has to wait send a reply home, wait another 4-24 minutes for the message to get there, wait 4-24 minutes for a message to come back before proceeding. It's also obviously unable to conduct repairs on itself or it's tools, or even do something as basic as cleaning the dust from itself.

Robots certainly have the advantage in longevity; curiosity has been operating since 2012 and is still going, but it's like comparing a roomba vs a team of professional cleaners. I think if you asked a planetary scientist if they'd could go back in time and instead of sending curiosity, send a couple of people for six months, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Keeping them alive and returning them doesn't require "a leap" which is the central point of OP I am disagreeing with. We have all the technology, material science etc to do it.

Sure, it requires some research, engineering and a crapload of investment, but it doesn't require anything that is currently "science fiction".

Humans are better at exploring and doing science than rovers, they could get things done a lot quicker and better. They can repair things and are very adaptable. A mission to spend 6 months on the surface would be great. Perhaps not worth the risk and expense though.

I think you are both on different pages about settlement vs just a visit.

It doesn't require a leap forward, we could put boots on the ground with 1990s tech.

"trans vegan murder cult" is the best band name ever