automatic6131

I think McEnroe was very unfair, and that men and women can be completely equal in technique and skill, even if not in physicality. But in my opinion, the women's game is what you watch if you want _even more_ tennis, or perhaps you really like the story lines of your favorite athletes for whatever reason. Similar to watching Formula 1 is just being a regular sports fan, but watching the Formula 2 season marks you as a slightly obsessive motorhead.

One of my favorite delusions is that men are only better at sports than women because they are socialized to be so from a young age - that if women & girls were encouraged to be strong, fast and competitive; and if boys were scolded or perhaps asked nicely to play... board games or roleplay or whatever, then there'd be an inverse. Oh, and this delusion is comorbid with the idea that the reason sports are segregated by sex is so that men aren't embarrassed when they are beaten by women.

What's fun about both of these delusions is that they are easily disproven by even mild contact with reality. Any level of sports training with a member of the opposite sex disproves this with incredible speed. You can read social media comments from women about the first time they wrestled or playfought their mostly inactive boyfriend for the first time, and asked them not to hold back. And this doesn't even need them to engage in any kind of sport.

To hold this, you have to wilfully, intentionally dodge all physical activities with the opposite sex from schooling to your adult life. And yet, it does exist! I've met people who believe this, in the face of all reality. And then these sports-dodgers will have consequently wrong opinions on e.g. transwomen in sports, whether transmen should be allowed to take steroids and compete, equal pay in sports...

That said though, I could believe there's some crossover point in ultra-ultra endurance sports where performance equals out between the sexes.

>The intent is good, but it seems they're still in the "fake it until you make it" stage

Please notice the internal contradictions here.

Documentation clearly following Conway's law: shipping the org chart.

I suppose access journalism does have to get something out of the bargain, however small it's not zero. If that's the way you like to spend idle time, well it takes all kinds. I don't understand competitive scrabble either.

Semianalysis is an AI hype organisation, not a serious, unbiased semiconductor reviewer/journalist like chipsandcheese nor a documentarian of the semiconductor industry like Asianonmetry (as it relates so strongly to the modern economies of Asia). If you see something from semianalysis, you can simply ignore it.

Yeah. I can't do the physics myself, so I take on faith (heh) that a sufficiently fast rotating blackhole has a ring shaped singularity that can extend outside its' event horizon.

This was news in the 90s and it was a plot point in at least two scifi books, though I don't think I can recommend either

>Why do these otherwise very smart people always seem to draw these kind of shortsighted conclusions?

The obvious conclusion is they aren't very smart. Consider that Cluely guy: the best returns on lying are to be the only one lying while everyone else tells the truth, so why does he want to promote lying? Partly dumb ragebait marketing (this isn't going to attract talent... and while it has given them millions in startup funding, how long are the sharks giving him the money going to do that?) and partly he just isn't very smart.

Amazon is almost completely unusable for search at this stage. I think perhaps 3/4 of the results are sponsored ads. Three in four. Trying to find a good deal on a product, even if you know precisely what you're looking for, is a real headache of trying to dodge the advertisement minefield.

Well at the moment AI hasn't made anyone any money. It's redistributed investors money (typically wealthy although some pension plans have been caught up too) to tradespeople, to Nvidia, SK Hynix, Micron and other specialised vendors with pricing power.

After that it's like... Who is making money? "we're doing 100x the things we're doing before" people can't really point to anything. Maybe it's in use everywhere all the time, and they've been pumping out twice the amount of features that no one uses or asked for as before, in which case this is classic value destruction

>the jury's still out on whether they alone will be enough for "superintelligence"...

Jury's been back for years: LLMs will never, can never, deliver superintelligence or AGI or the Omnissiah for that matter.

I thought we were at the stage where emotive language was fine when it's literally wrong if it communicates the right idea?

Actually, your example there would be absolutely true. Getting in someone's enthusiast but mid-range F1 simulator toy with all the game assists turned off would both: imply a near fatal accident happening over 50% of the time AND it would be accurate too.

Consider:

FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem, a former Rally driver at the top level, crashed an F1 car within 100m of trying to go fast in it

And

Mr Beast, a youtuber with zero motorsports experience, crashed a Formula E car on a demonstration lap as part of the pre race F1 festivities.

If a regular person with a drivers license and no familiarity attempted to play even a simulator video game, the results are in fact similar to what happens in the real world.

Ahh yes: "when you Rovo, you oh-no my data"

I support the medical model then, disabled people who can't work should, ought, to be among the poorest in society, just above the people that can work but don't. Because some people have to be the relatively poor compared to the rest (in absolute terms though: you are richer than almost anyone alive in year 800 CE so not starving poor nor barely surviving poor) and so, who should be? Should the able working be poorer than a disabled person doing less work? The same work?

And why should disabled people be able to craft policy that will be funded largely by the abled? In order to have legitimacy of a policy, you need to involve the people that will pay for it.

The social model is non-sensical, it's unfair, and it cloaks its unfairness in the language of social justice which it doesn't deserve to. There are better forms of advocacy.

> In the living room the voice-clock sang, Connecting to Brand(tm) servers... Connecting to Brand(tm) servers... Connecting to Brand(tm) servers...

> this reads a lot like someone who decided how they feel about LLM-driven engineering ~5 months ago and doesn’t seem to reflect the current reality.

I've been reading this for 2 years straight. "oh you have a criticism of AI? Well they fixed that in Aeternos v Y-point-Z, which after doing all of my work also gave my wife an orgasm for the first time this year, obviously OP is using the old model".

>What incredible problem did FB/Meta solve with the Marketplace

They adapted something that people were already using in great numbers, and provided a good interface for an extra hot flow without compromising what facebook was. (so that people would keep using facebook for this purpose, and not go to another platform with a dedicated workflow, e.g. craigslist or freecycle)

So they did actually provide value to end users here, and arguably captured some for themself too. I know the last n times I've opened facebook have been exclusively for buy/sell groups

These buffoons started with a bad idea, raised a lot of money to do the impossible, unsurprisingly failed, and learned basically nothing. Or what they did learn was irrelevant to the reason why they failed.

It's very depressing, but at least I don't work for them. That would square my depression.

That's a different matter, that's an unpriced externality, were the oil company required to pay to sort the water out didn't choose because they weren't forced to.

So the oil should be economically unviable but due to poor regulation, they were able to extract it.

Doing economically inviable things is waste. It's pumping resources into something worth less than the sum of its inputs.

Apropos of nothing, see one trillion dollars into datacenters.

That's because White and Nerdy isn't a standalone song (if it was, it would be rubbish). It only has value as referential humour and self deprecating parody. So by being literal, it's using juxtaposition to emphasise the humour: It's funny when the nerd is pointing at the old JS logo and star trek's klingon icon because one would typically expect there to be something related to black culture, as in the start of the music video.

If it wasn't a parody of an existing song, and the popular genre, it would be complete garbage. Nothing about the song would work.

Sure, so did the Roman Republic and Pharonic Egypt and Imperial China and Communist China

So you're going to need a more accurate diagnosis than simply capitalism

The problem isn't capitalism, well it's not JUST capitalism. If you give any group of individuals that level of wealth control, the same pattern repeats. They can be shareholders, board directors, or commissars or general secretaries of the people's party, a prince or a duke, or the first citizen.

It doesn't matter, all you need to replicate the same problems is concentration of wealth and power and the ability to direct it.

Humiliation-assisted prompting. it's the future.

Almost no one said those were impossible, just hard. This is completely different. Rather like... a train in a vacuum tube hard. Definitely harder than making a subway with autonomous trains under a modern city. And much harder than being a third rate AI lab, though Elon did hit that target perfectly.

Is it too eugenecist to hope those losers won't reconsider and stay childfree? I think it would be for the best if I didn't have to meet them at parental things.

>because they don't try to be quite so antagonistic to us in everything they do.

Just because the many headed dragon is trying to bite your sailors' heads doesn't mean you should pilot your ship into the whirlpool

You're asserting a dichotomy that doesn't exist. One can both create and extract at the same time.

That's why we're here debating, because one can create value, and one can extract value. Both statements are true and easy to argue for. The synthesis is that creating value also grants licence to extract since it's impossible (possibly even theoretically impossible) to define exactly where the line between the two is.

"let's go the opposite way"

Do you have any popular open source projects? Or are you just an Internet gremlin?