andsoitis

They erecting a virtual world bubble to hide from us the devastation AI is going to wreck on the natural world around us.

I'll be more precise, what do you mean by "let"? Anthropic does not need permission....

> (other) companies won't let his succeed

What do you mean “won’t let his succeed”?

> not feeling right

That came from you. And it’s a deep thing.

This reminds me the The Economist's article: How tech moguls built a podcasting echo chamber

https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2026/10/15/how-tech-mogul...

> Humans in a modern lab are largely unnecessary. Just look at China.

Care to elaborate, explain?

What is the relevance to this case? Isn’t this site less rich than Roblox and their hosting copyrighted items and they’re not getting punished.

Or am I misreading the situation?

Direction is right, but more rigorous is A/B testing to learn what people actually prefer.

Stated preference is very often different from demonstrated preference.

> On a rainy day that drops closer to 20%

And you’re still able to power your entire home? What if the rain lasts for a few days, which is pretty common in many places.

It does that too, but it would be unbalanced to not also recognize it protects green energy companies in America from Chinese competition.

Not only does Chinese competition get blocked, but governments are incentivizing green energy. For instance, just recently it was reported that Tesla’s $10B solar factory could get 35 years of tax breaks in Texas (Oil Capital!!!)

https://electrek.co/2026/10/23/tesla-solar-factory-texas-35-...

> But our government is banning Chinese tech to serve our outdated industries instead of importing it to serve the population.

It protects American companies who operate in the green energy generation and storage arena from Chinese competition.

Setting the pace and pacing the frontier ™

Don't expect supersize profits from Anthropic anytime soon.

Addition is way easier than division. :-)

Executing an algorithm that you've learned and that is true should have 100% accuracy. Otherwise, I think you either haven't actually learned the algorithm or you learned an incorrect algorithm.

> I have no idea what IBM does

For one thing, amongst many, IBM mainframes process 70% of global transactions on a value basis

> ...addition with 99.69% accuracy.

> Neural networks can learn algorithms, not just patterns. The 777-parameter model didn’t memorize. It couldn’t. It discovered a general procedure for addition that works on numbers it had never seen.

If that's true, I would have expected accuracy to be 100%. Why isn't it 100% accurate?

> Not having any to begin with and instead hundreds of thousands of smaller businesses doing small business things with those would be a good start.

That's silly.

You are advocating for either:

a) SpaceX should not have been started in the first place

OR

b) Now that it has made so much possible and is so large, it should be disbanded and the assets distributed to these hundreds of thousands of small businesses? You do realize that if you disband it, the shares would not be worth much, right? They only have value because they represent future profits from the SpaceX business.

> SpaceX is subsidized by public markets. Why do you think it was listed ? It was to extract cash from the markets. Its P/e is about 5000. I

At least get your facts straight. A quick search will reveal that SPCX P/E ratio is no where close to the absurd number of 5,000 that you're throwing around.

I can agree that ideally the only permitted way to influence and election should be via your one vote. And that there should be guardrails to prevent, detect, and punish the instances that are not permitted.

> Only because it's a requirement if you ever want to retire in a society that puts profit above human life.

You think profit is anti-human?

Yes. I'm all for taxation, including progressive taxation. But I'm against saying people should not be allowed to build wealth in excess of $x.

The vast majority of people have pension funds and other investments that have a stake in Meta.

> Your assume that it is currently productive, and afterwards it will become unproductive. That may be true, or may not be.

If you have above a certain amount of wealth, it is usually tied up in investments, sometimes money you have lent to the government (bonds, treasuries) and other times equity. Those are productive applications.

> Are you seriously trying to compare half a billion total spent by a single man (just Elon) to middle class people contributing $50 to an election?

Yes, I am.

It is a policy failure to allow ANYONE to spend money to influence / support elected officials. Your only influence should be voting.

Sure, all religions are fictional, but I don't know that that has anything to do with the discussion.

> Buying elections is a destructive use of wealth.

Of course, that statement sounds reasonable. However, to make it concrete, who do you think bought which election?

I'd be very curious to see your example demonstrate what you mean by "buy".

“Erase” is sleight of hand. Islam isn’t affected at all by it being omitted from the movie.

> Oh, so you believe you are the best judge of how to allocate resources

The person, our group of people, who have built the specific heap of wealth (e.g. a company) are the best stewards in my opinion. It does not mean that they WILL increase the wealth even more, they might run it into the ground, but they are the only ones who have the moral right and probably the experience.

> We would be much better off if a single person didn't dictate what productive means those would be applied to.

To make it concrete, hHow do you think SpaceX should spend its resources differently than it does?