bostonsre

Sounds plausible, any idea what proportion of the large index funds they are thought to own? In the same vein, I wonder if pension funds can pose a risk or if they are self perpetuating enough to not cause any fire sales.

If it is a bubble what can take the wind out of the sails? A few experts screaming about it doesn't seem like it will be enough.

Can't gpt4 already do "basic math"?

Is it the tech that is worth that much or the tech and the people that built the tech when future iterations of the product rely so heavily on the people? Losing 95 percent of the employees will definitely impact delivering future products and that will definitely impact future profits and that has to impact valuation.

It's one of the most innovative and impactful companies in a long time. I'm sure they'll be able to run gpt4, but good luck delivering gpt 5 (or 6 depending on how far along 5 is) when you lost entire teams that dreamt up and built previous iterations.

What is the goal of environmentalism? Avoiding short term harm or fostering sustainability in the long term?

You don't think reaching out further into the universe will give more people the pale blue dot viewpoint and could cause more people to care more about earth when they realize how fragile and insignificant it is?

What about moving industry off the earth in the distant future? Wouldn't that be good for earth in the long run?

I have no experience in this area, but I feel like the ideas are the hard part in music. These are rough drafts and some of them have promise if they can be refined in an iterative fashion with the user at the helm.

It would be funny if his parents just stopped showing up to court and couldn't be found anywhere.

Shouldn't they have noticed that an ip or a set of ips were trying to log into a bunch of different accounts?

If you are trying to do something with an api that you have no experience with it will get you up and running quickly. e.g. How do I get all kubernetes configmaps in a given namespace older than n days in go? It gives you the bones about how you create and configure a client and query kubernetes to get the information that you are looking for. It's much quicker than googling and parsing a tutorial.

Wouldn't you just need to publish a Rosetta stone type translation for it to be able to digest the new language fully? e.g. here is how you do this in python and here is how you do it in this new language

If your interface to the internet is a locally running open source ai assistant, couldn't you just tell it to strip out ads from the information it returns? It could change the internet economy some.

Anyone know how much it costs to maintain the reserve infrastructure? Do they have facilities that need to be staffed to keep an eye on it or is do they just need to just have perimeter security?

> No, it would only be coherent if you also accept the other premises I put forth (which I'm fairly certain you don't, but you haven't really acknowledged or debated them so hard to say for sure, suffice to say they are not commonly help premises).

You attack my argument by saying it's illegible. You are a libertarian and I understand that it's a viewpoint that people have but they don't fully consider the actual ramifications of those policies. It is odd that you are so incredibly dismissive of an argument that tries to help people and that you don't see it as a valid argument.

> Yes I absolutely favor freedom of individual choice over preventing all individuals from making choices that may not be best for them

It just seems silly to me that you acknowledge that it's not OK to ruin society completely but it's fine to ruin only some lives all because they should be able to make a short sighted decision that they will regret.

> This is nonsense. Addiction is indeed very powerful, but in our society we still consider these individuals responsible for their actions. Being in the throes of heroin addiction is not a valid plea to escape a murder conviction, and indeed it shouldn't be.

I am guessing you've never had a hard drug addiction or known someone that has had it. How is it nonsense? They literally want to stop and know it is ruining their lives but can't stop. All because you want people to have some silly right to take hard drugs for some bs ideal. How about have some empathy and try to minimize misery? What is best for human kind in the long run?

> Well forgive the repetition here, but because that’s both an incredibly vague definition and because it’s incompatible with a society that values individual agency.

> I could imagine the possibility of a drug that has just the right combination of effects to be both irresistible and destructive to such a degree that it threatens to collapse society in such a way where no solutions are obvious where I could see reconsidering as a matter of pragmatism, but we’re quite far from something like that

OK, so it is a coherent argument then and just one you don't agree with? The collapse of a portion of society is ok with you, just not the collapse of all of society? Hard drugs are exactly that addictive to many users that try them. Most want to stop but they can't, where is the retention of prime control over their bodies?

Why does the fact that hard drug addiction hijacks the reward circuitry of the brain and is bad not a coherent argument? There has to be some red line that is too much. Say a drug causes schizophrenia after using it half the time. Should that be legal? How about every time? What if it kills you in a year after one use?

Yea, it's a mess with no clear right answer. It doesn't sound like it's going too well in Portugal and Portland, but yea, some dystopian police state doesn't seem like the best answer either. It almost feels like some kind of delayed fuse terrorism that is plauging us. If cartels were killing people with guns instead of drugs, there would be military action. I wouldn't normally speak for military action, but having our fellow citizens hooked on hard drugs that kill and ruin lives is an absolute horror. Maybe we attack cartels and try to reduce supply some? Else, another route could be to produce a soma like drug that is safe and cheap so that people can be addicted and maintain their lives. It would have to be government controlled though, I don't think we would want corporations trying to compete and produce the best variant. But this route would lead to more people getting addicted and it would reduce the productivity of our society.

> Should we eliminate all potential sources of illogical behavior?

How about we try to avoid the really harmful stuff that ruins lives and kills people like drug addiction? We place plenty of limits on stuff that can kill people. This is not some slippery slope thing, allowing it to flourish in our society is not in the long term best interest of literally anyone.

> If we assume consenting adults are capable of making decisions and we value their freedom in doing so, drug prohibition is directly counter to that value

That is the problem, we cannot assume that adults in the throws of addiction are capable of making decisions that are in their best interests. Your thought process is not logical when addicted and maximizes getting high at the cost of everything else.

> I tend to think increased usage of a regulated and taxable substance by a well educated and supported populous is significantly preferable to prohibition and scare tactics

The problem is opioids and other hard drugs aren't regulated, they are just made legal.

Human thought when addicted to hard drugs is not logical. Giving people the freedom to consume them has the effect of allowing them to forfeit their freedom from choice when they become addicted. Making them even more widely available will just cause more to become ensnared in their web.

We are organic machines developed without the influence of hard drugs over millions of years. We don't have complete control over our actions or thoughts. Why do you like sex? Why do you like men or women? Our programming controls this and drug addiction is a similar irrational control loop.

Is perfect agreement possible? And what is the definition of agreement? Humans don't agree about much.. are we saying agreement means it matches the truth after intensive investigation by humans?

Could be Armageddon. Maybe they want a new vacation home and they are prepping the battlefield and doing some recon.

Yep, would probably be the dawn of a new era if proven to be true publicly.

They take an oath to serve the United States. If they notice illegal activity that can't be resolved through the chain of command, they have a responsibility to speak up and resolve it through being a whistle blower. We also don't know what evidence he has. It could be bullshit or it could be actual evidence but people on hacker news won't know the truth.

Would you self destruct your broken down car so that ants couldn't get a hold of the technology? Would you care if the ants you are studying notice you?

Yea, pretty interesting point.. seems like either the uk market isn't big enough for them to implement a solution or they don't care about the market and they care about people in the uk but they don't care about people in China.

His thoughts have lots of traction, I think he needs to be engaged and not dismissed as a joke. There is a lot of distrust on the right in how covid played out. We are all on the same team here and everyone would be better off if we all realized it. The other side is not evil, they are trying to do what they think is best for everyone.

Yea, that and the external engine used to start the engines were pretty great ideas to simplify the project and still meet their requirements.

> 3. Now attempting leaks of cherry-picked vanity metrics so massaged they can’t fairly be called “statistics” to friendly anti-tech local media.

The situations where they do stupid stuff are also relatively rare. But they are programs, won't they do the same stupid stuff in those situations when they come across them again? If they run over fire hoses in one case, shouldn't that be a show stopper? This isn't some silly app or website, the whole move fast and break things attitude shouldn't be allowed for driverless cars. They should be acknowledging their shortcomings and striving for perfection.

> Local politicians need to find another anti-tech boogeyman. This one is too vital to the revitalization of SF.

How does it help the revitalization of SF? Doesn't it take away jobs for those in the lower rung of society? The only people I can possibly see benefiting are the people that work at the companies that make the cars.

I would imagine simulator practice is a good amount different from executing the real thing when your adrenaline is kicking in and they have a full plane. They are professionals that executed a complex task gracefully to minimize the terror that their passengers experienced (they balanced on the back wheels for a long time to bleed off speed and the landing seemed more graceful than many with all landing gear that I've had). Why not give them some props instead of taking them for granted? Maybe the pilots weren't too worried, but I'm sure the passengers must have been pretty terrified.

It's hard to be precise about it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you are gaining weight on your current caloric intake and exercise regiment, lower the amount of calories you are eating. Being an advanced sniper that takes into account all the various impacts of physics is great and can work, or you can use tracer bullets and walk in your shot with a simple ooda loop.