cortesoft

Fair, but so did the person I replied to. For the purposes of what we are trying to do, unpredictable is what matters.

Depends on the algorithm they use to find patterns.

They were probably also a RNG… one of them has to win, just on chance.

Is there a way to determine how true to original color they are now?

There are a lot of people in the world who weren’t part of that “we”, and they were often the ones who ended up lending money to the people who did think it was evil.

I don’t think there is any rational argument that ALL lending is evil (there are certainly many categories of lending that have lots of arguments for its evilness)

If we don’t have credit, then the only people capable of starting a business, for example, are those who are already wealthy.

You could add support for something like simplefin.org, which provides an API for connecting to many different financial orgs. It is what I have been using for my local setup with Actual budget.

How should credit reports work?

What evidence do you have that consciousness is related to determinism?

> Only a matter of time until we see "OpenWarden", just like we saw the migration from Redis to Valkey.

Vaultwarden already exists

What? Why not?

My first thought was "maybe security compliance training should include mandatory screening of Spaceballs"

Which does remind me of my game theory class in college... the professor would show movie scenes that demonstrated the game model we would be studying that week. It was quite effective, and certainly helped keep me engaged.

On the other hand, in my 20 year career the only real interview I did was for my first job. Every one after that was from people I worked with recruiting me to work with them somewhere, and the interview process was more about pitching me on their company.

Sometimes i wonder if I would have a better career if I was more proactive in my job searches, but I do enjoy the experience of being pursued a lot more enjoyable than pursuing.

Why isn’t AI a complex form of abstraction?

It works because it re-uses previous work to solve new problems. That is what abstractions are used for.

People always say this, but I don’t think it is always true.

I have been a software developer for 30 years, and I am always wanting to automate and ‘smartify’ everything in my house.

It is true that I want to self host everything, too, and use open source as much as I can, but I am not avoiding technology.

I got into computers because I love technology, and want to play with as much of it as I can.

The total amount of money going to artists doesn’t change in either system, the only change is with which artists get what fraction of the money paid.

Artists with larger fanbases will prefer the newer method, while smaller artists with dedicated followers would prefer the current method.

Why would going viral be not as valuable in this method of royalty distribution?

Going viral viral means lots of different people listening to you, and this method helps those people more. A wider audience that listens to fewer hours of your music is better in this scheme compared to a smaller, dedicated audience which is better in the current scheme.

I agree, they should do it on a per subscriber basis.

This actually doesn’t have anything to do with AI, especially since the scheme started in 2017.

The fraud is only possible because of the way the streaming revenue sharing is split. The way royalties are paid by streamers can basically be summed up by the equation: (total subscription revenue * some agreed to percentage) / total hours streamed by all subscribers for all songs * total hours your songs were streamed.

So let’s say total revenue is $1 million and the artists get 10% of revenue, and there is a total of 1 million hours of streamed music by those subscribers. This means that artists will earn 10 cents for every hour their song is streamed.

On the surface, this seems like a pretty fair way to distribute revenue.

However, what this means that a user who streams more will generate more revenue for artists than a user who streams less, even though the two users pay the same price for their subscription.

For example, imagine a streamer only has two customers, Bob and Alice. If Bob listens to 99 hours of Artist A, while Alice listens to 1 hour of Artist B, then Artist A will get 99 times as much revenue as Artist B, even though they both have one fan and they both pay the same.

So you can see how this could be abused; if I sign up for an account and have it stream my music 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, I am going to have more hours streamed than 20 average users, meaning I end up earning more revenue in royalties than I paid for my subscription (since even though I only get 10% of the revenue, my 20x the average subscriber volume means I end up with 2x my subscription cost in revenue)

If I do this thousands of times, I can make serious money… like this guy did, apparently.

There is a simple fix for this, and I think it actually makes it more fair for artists; do the revenue split on a per user basis. In other words, if 10% of revenue goes to the artists, you take 10% of an individual subscribers subscription price, and divide it up amongst all the artists that user streamed based on time streamed. For example, if my sub costs $10, $1 goes to the artists I stream. If I only listen to one artist, they get the $1 no matter how many hours I stream.

This ensures that a single user can never direct more than their own 10% to an artist, and you would have no incentive to stream your own music.

This seems fair and reasonable to me.

The medium thinking effort one doesn't have a sun at all?

My only point was that preventing the government from using the proposed system is not a valid concern, because they wouldn't need the proposed system

National/state authorities could already do this with the current software and systems in place... the only additions the software proposed is adding are around privacy protections and distributed control, which the government wouldn't want anyway.

Doing underground expansion correctly won’t cause streets to sink.

On the other hand, you could argue that the reason they have a “no daytime visitors” rule in the first place is because they have no way of knowing how manhunt visitors there are so they just make the rule “none” so they don’t have to try to provide how many were there at once.

If you could accurately know how many people there are and when they are there, you could have a more reasonable rule like “no more than 3 guests during the day and they have to leave by 9pm” or something.

I feel like LLMs really highlight the ambiguity and imprecision of the english language in normal use. LLMs are getting really good at guessing what we mean, but it is still a guess.

> in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person

Does the person have to know (or at least believe) that it will be viewed by another person?

She likely didn't think anyone would view it. Honestly, even as a career software developer I don't think it is unreasonable to think know would would see what she wrote to an AI. I assume most of what I write to an AI is not viewed by any other human, based simply on the quantity of messages sent back and forth to AIs, I would assume a vast majority are not read by another human.

What if she had written this into google docs, and she kept a diary there? That also crosses state lines, and is transmitted to another location.

Yeah, you can't just implement it as a pure "stop all services immediately once I hit a set amount"

It needs to be more like "don't allow spinning up additional services after you hit this amount", although that still allows you to go over the limit by a lot, since most services are billed hourly.

It really is difficult to implement a spending cap that doesn't risk shutting down important things.

> the more I realize that nobody cares about your health as much as you do

This is going to be true in all medical systems, and really in all systems for all fields.

No one else (other than maybe your immediate family) is going to care as much about your situation as you are. Any doctor, in any system, is going to have multiple patients, and they will care about all of them. You, an individual, is going to care about your own life because it is the most important thing to you, and you aren’t splitting that amongst many different patients.

Sure, that is what we want, but I am not sure what you expected OP to do? Put his life on hold, skip trying for a baby, and dedicate his life to trying to change a system that people have been fighting to change unsuccessfully for decades?

OP is playing the cards he has been dealt, not wishing that he was playing a completely different game.

I am not saying you are right or wrong, but I don’t think you can make such a broad conclusion simply because of your own experience.

You say you used AI and your projects turned into unmaintainable messes, so your conclusion is that it means AI is not living up to its promises.

I guess if the argument is “AI makes it so you always get a great result no matter how you use it”, then your argument is sound. Your projects not working out proves that AI doesn’t always work no matter what.

However, that doesn’t mean you can’t use AI to create sustainable and well organized code. Failing to do something doesn’t mean it’s impossible and anyone who thinks they can is not paying attention.

I can’t run a marathon. If I went out and tried to run one, I would get a few miles and collapse, failing completely.

I don’t think it would be reasonable, though, at that point to say “running a marathon is impossible, anyone who says they can do it clearly lying. I tried and didn’t even make it 5 miles!”

I wish people would stop assuming their experience with something is the only possible truth.

But you can’t build a business on “wants” that people don’t act on.

If everybody says they want foo and don’t want bar, but when you make foo they don’t buy any but will buy a lot of bar, then are you “failing to provide what people want” if you just make bar?