chii

People are and should be allowed to make bad financial choices, provided that they take on all of the consequences from it themselves, and not expect to be bailed out.

Framework does exactly what the GP claims to want.

Unfortunately, not many people making those claims _actually_ want them by revealed preferences. They overwhelmingly want the lower price laptops with similar performance specs.

> far easier to run your own business than at any time in history.

But let me play the devil's advocate and argue the point: who will the business sell to, if most people are not in a position with wealth to spare to buy from your business?

> Nobody says what these "new skills" are?

it's unknown, because those skills and work associated with them are not yet created.

Just like how being a live streamer (or youtuber) is not a known skill until the advent of streaming platforms and their associated economies. If you asked on the internet in 1995 what kids would have done for a job in 2025, none of them would've said streamer.

i recall always playing with a house rule where you can pay some large amount to immediately build hotels, but cant recall if this made the game more or less "problematic".

The name can imply a lot and make bias.

Responsible disclosure puts the responsibility onto the researcher - it implies they're irresponsible if they didn't comply with the company's timeframe.

Coordinated disclosure accurately describes what _should_ happen - the disclosure happens after some X time (where X is a reasonable time that depends on the vulnerability, as determined by the researcher).

> You're forced to write syntax that appeases the tester. If they are not happy you need to return and rewrite.

that's called the write/compile/check loop

but if suddenly it's ai, people freakout at having to do this?

i dont mean technically, i meant players won't accept it.

> My counterargument is that America is too big, and needs to end its massive Federation (which seems to cause so many of the problems here), to allow more-local-rule.

and yet, when it comes to local zoning, where NIMBY rules, there's a large voice to call for federal overruling to make dense zoning possible despite local resident's wishes.

The idea of more local rule is only good when it suits said locals, and not good when it doesn't - it's all self-serving imho.

> How do you build reputation in that environment?

word of mouth and circle of trust that spread?

You can't be interrupted with ads every few minutes when gaming.

they dont need to brick the machine - they can simply ban your online account, which they can use EULA to make you agree to before getting that account. You lose your games if the game requires online verification (which implies an account). This way, you won't be able to play your games purchased, even if it's a physical copy - you can only play games that don't have verification like this (i dont own a switch, so i dont know if this is actually true).

None of these would be consideration if the car itself was competitive. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on which side you're on), tesla is now no longer competitive with the advent of the chinese EV manufacturers.

The last holdout being the USA, where the gov't is preferentially giving tesla their marketshare instead of letting open competition work in favour of consumers.

But like japanese cars, this will eventually also take root.

> you would be able to claim that as a work expense against your income

only if it was necessary for the job, and the employer would've otherwise paid for it.

But if the employer originally paid for an LLM, but chose not to now, i am not sure that you personally paying for one is tax deductible (might have to argue it out with the tax office).

people pay out of pocket for transport to job all the time. granted, $1k/month is quite high, and personally i would say that it ought to be an employer responsibility to provide the tooling (and bear all the costs). But it is understandable, if not foolhardy imho.

> backed by the Chinese state

as opposed to the current crop being backed by the US state? The ones that are basically crying foul at competition? The ones that unilaterally tries to dictate based on political friendliness and compliance (ala, anthropic getting banned)?

At least with open models, you can own the hardware and do the end to end. The current bottleneck is hardware availability at low cost, but i am guessing the chinese state is looking to build their own chip supply chains. I suspect they will succeed.

so how does being a good shooter make you a better guided missile shooter?

but the analogy would be a riflemen trained to aim, and a person pressing button for guided missiles. How good you are at the original task is unlikely to matter when the new way supersedes the old way.

> coach someone else to run faster

my point was that the new future where running faster doesn't matter any more might come, because everyone is driving (and potentially can't run much at all).

so lets say 10x domains. That's $100/year.

Your water bill costs more than this. Your toilet rolls cost more than this. And certainly a cleaner costs more than this, if you have a business premise.

> Why do you assume that someone more intelligent would not be able to wield any AI tooling better than an average or below average human?

would someone who runs faster 100m also somehow drive better?

> Development cost for that game was around US $1.5 billion.

but is it making the game any better? Or is it just gold plating?

> violate treaties the US has signed.

not that has stopped the US doing something.

The fact is, copyright extensions have served corporate interests well and is likely to continue to get extended even more, and more draconian, given how many decompilation and recomps have been done recently.

> Then it turns out they weren't serious.

the classic revealed preference vs stated preference.

internet is not shared in the same way the airwaves are.

I believe this is the regular syntax for a set of characters (between "[" and "]"), but the caret symbol ("^") is negation when used inside the set. Therefore, it is simply the negation of an empty set of characters.

but you don't have any obligation to all potential shareholder as an insider, just the current shareholders. Which is what i was trying to get at with my comments.

but public implies public to non-shareholders too.

What if there's a secret communications channel for all current shareholders? Do these current shareholders offloading shares (to future shareholders) count as insider trading under this scenario?

> you don’t share that equitably with the people you have that obligation to, that’s insider trading (in the US).

so if you simply tell the other shareholders to also participate in the insider trading, you'd be free of charges?

> if you know that the iPhone is years ahead of everything else and you happen to be holding Apple stock, then you won’t let whoever is managing your portfolio sell any of it

This is what executives with stock based compensations can an usually do.

we only regulate the sell side (or buy side), but not the inaction side (where you hold your existing position). I have not thought of a good way to make the market aware of these choices, in a way that enables market efficiency.