_red

I love the name "OpenAI" for something kept closely guarded and tightly controlled.

Perfect Orwellian double-speak for our new internet.

No. Although the name is "OpenAI" there is very very very little open about it.

Yes, Buffets long-term shtick has been "grandfatherly simpleton". He intentionally plays that up for maximum effect. What I find interesting is that now Gates is aping Buffet in that regard. Gates now exclusively appears wearing sweaters and speaking in simple truisms. Selling vaccines must require it?

Yes, but Stanford says the CFR for those under 70 is 0.04%

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v...

>turn around times

my company tried to outsource a ancillary product we develop in 2011-2013 timeframe. It wound up being non-viable and we brought it back in-house.

I think many don't see how pernicious turn-around times can be. They continue to build upon each other like compounding interest. It can be a very very hard loop to break out of. The cycle of question -> answer -> further question -> meeting can grind progress to a halt when each iteration takes 12 hours.

Because often the way these things escalate is police are called because protesters are burning and looting...

This is my point: The presentation of this list inherently absolves one-side from any misdeeds.

Yes, its not surprising that big business wants it.

But it is surprising how many "progressives" have been co-opted into F100 talking points, who they claim they oppose.

Donald Trump was a democrat for most of his life. The basic tenants of secure borders + protecting american jobs was basically the Democrat platform for most of its existence.

But (ding)

why (ding)

dont (ding)

you (ding)

like chatting (ding)

? (ding)

Further, the author wants us to be outraged of "how entirely simple and legal this is".

However, why should the Federal government get this land at all? We used to have allodial title many years ago...but then it became common-law precedent that we effectively "rent" our land from the government and pay perpetual property taxes for that right.

The lack of allodial title is what ultimately creates an inescapable "head tax" on every citizen.

There something more going on. In the past 3 months the following narratives have been pushed by the MSM:

1 - Trump is a racist for suggesting that borders should exist

2 - Trump is liable all covid deaths for not closing the borders fast enough

3 - The state/police are great for enforcing stay-at-home orders and social distancing

4 - We need thousands or millions to assemble in the streets to fight police

This is the type of schizophrenic messaging that happens during societal collapse.

HN is usually pretty good at detecting insecure implementations and obvious attempts at subversion.

I wonder whats wrong in this case?

This somewhat a classic Strategy vs Tactics problem:

The best Strategy is to do nothing

The best Tactic is the complex array of shutdowns, mask, social distancing, pharmaceuticals.

The sun will eventually burn out, asteroids will continue to hit, plagues will continue to come....the entire universe will ultimately end.

It always seems that those who fetishize "environmental conservation" don't really appreciate the situation we are in. That doesn't mean that we should actively destroy it, but its fate has already been sealed.

The notion that there is some pristine perfect world is probably a holdover from religious thinking that has now morphed its way into a modern secular religion.

>because they're a monopoly

They're not a monopoly.

>You're not well informed about the book and that makes your comments pretty painful to read

I accept that. But I'm commenting on the article that OP linked which quoted Gibson.

>I don't see this as a pathetic premise.

You might agree with the politics of it which could be clouding your vision (I'm not intending that as anyway critical). Sometimes it's helpful to view it from another angle:

Imagine if back in 2015 I told you my big book idea was set in 2200 and was about a group of renegade patriots who traveled back in time to stop Obama getting elected because 80% of the population had been killed in the FEMA camps he set up....

Would you think that was somehow a profound idea? Or would it strike you as pathetic attempt of me shoehorning politics into my work? Wouldn't that come across as hysterical and insulting to the future?

The notion that 120+ years in the future the world will have changed so little that its still follows the same MSNBC vs Fox News script of today borders on hubris.

>[2136 book idea]....a world in which 80 percent of the population has been wiped out by climate change, but also a world where characters time-travel to create an alternate past in which Clinton won the election.

This is strange on so many levels...sort of pathetic that these are the plot ideas the grandfather of cyberpunk fiction is dreaming up...

>widespread testing of the population

So you mandatory test everyone and determine that 28% of the population has been exposed to the virus. Now what?

> 20 look at my reaction to world

who is the "my" you are referring to? you have an 'a priori' conflict.

Typically the debate centers around "non-ionizing radiation is safe" and strictly speaking that's probably 100% true.

>We've reversed course on plenty of things that were once believed to be fine

That is my concern. Specifically that the "non-ionizing radiation" is a red-herring. Its possible that EMF exposure effects cells in another way that we've yet to realize. As a poor analogy: Arguing that being exposed to constant visible light on the basis that "Light is non-ionizing" misses the fact that constant visible light disrupts the circadian rhythm which has a host of other ill-effects.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we ban something on a fear, but given the enormous potential cost if we get it wrong, it should be thoroughly studied.

Preface 1: I think the evidence points to that 5G is probably safe

Preface 2: I do think we should tend to err on the side caution. I fear in 40 years we will look back at our blind rush into many forms of tech incredulously (ie. can you believe in 2020 everyone had wifi installed in their homes? next to their kids?!?)

Having said all that, who benefits from the "anti-5G" coordinated effort?

All good points.

There is no reason why short meeting codes + 2-3 sec delay before joining + temporarily banning users who enter more than 10 invalid meeting codes in a row can't work.

There are ways to improve the security without putting on the clients shoulders. A 6 digit room code is fine if a person can only "war dial" 10 tries before being banned for an hour or so.

Donate something that cost you 0.10 per pill and getting a tax write-off for $2.00 per pill. Sure, why not?

Face it, HCQ is an old and cheap drug that doesn't fit Big Pharma profit visions.

Its much more enticing for Big Pharma to sell new patented solutions, so they will pay their PR mouthpieces (MSM) to "be cautious" of anything that doesn't achieve that end goal.

> the only real response by the technology community was a handful of blog posts

Something that is rarely talked about anymore but true is that the original 'internet culture' from the early 90s is basically dead.

The ethos of that age was an active distrust of government and centralized authority. Further, there was a lack of trust in politics in general. That's basically gone now.

The new technologist are not just unprincipled, they are deeply political and will support whatever initiative their tribe is pursuing. Even more cynical, is how can they even be against 'spying' and 'privacy violations'? 90% of the jobs available involve doing just that.

There is no way to have a world both against the EARN IT act and yet work for FB, Google, etc - they are basically all part of the same spyware industry.

>Good human narrators add nuance and emphasis and energy Imagine you have a product that is used in 3 or 4 different countries and you need to produce regular training videos for customers in those languages.

You seem to be making this "either / or" its simply another tool.

There could actually be a statistical case for people who have genes for longevity who drink, smoke, etc.

I don't mean that 'smoking is good for you', but that those who are going to live long, will live long no matter what their personal habits are. Thus when you look at really old people, those that drink / smoke are over-represented. They are statistical outliers of course...

>...and the millions that Bill Gates asked for pandemic research 5 years ago.

I for one really regret I haven't been chipped yet from Bills ID2020 program. I wish it could be funded. The only people who could be against it are the anti-science nutters.

I'm sure the EULA of the chip program will include both a robust privacy policy and a CoC.

From what I understand, countries like Germany are only reporting deaths with no co-morbidity, whereas Italy anyone that was positive with Covid19 in their system and dies is being reported as a death.

The lack of standardized reporting is odd considering the impacts. It definitely seems to be contributing to the general confusion on decision making.