customguy

Why do you think that will happen, and why do you think going for slop in the meantime could possibly bring us closer to that?

The question wasn't "is there anybody who supports this", but how that isn't ethnonationalist.

With what? You cannot even say WHAT is supposed to be "classic suicidal empathy". You made no point, you just demonstrated distress over the word "empathy" that seems to be so big you cannot even express what your issue is.

ChatGPT just hit me with "I smiled at this:" ...

> > If we don't have empathy with victims of that

> Classic suicidal empathy.

What is? You didn't even quote a full sentence, you're basically just freaking out over the word empathy.

And interestingly, what you failed to even try to parse says the opposite. I do NOT have empathy with those who don't have empathy with others. I'm not "crying", you kinda are.

It just says the same thing regardless of what I enter:

1 million annual:

> If you got to keep your fair share of the profit Amazon.com reported, $77.7B, your salary would be $1.049.283. You helped Amazon.com make enough to pay you $49.283 more.

3 million annual:

> If you got to keep your fair share of the profit Amazon.com reported, $77.7B, your salary would be $3.049.283. You helped Amazon.com make enough to pay you $49.283 more.

1 dollar per year:

> If you got to keep your fair share of the profit Amazon.com reported, $77.7B, your salary would be $49.284. You helped Amazon.com make enough to pay you $49.283 more.

> You forgot 'signalling' which is what people in the West - not just the USA - are tired of.

No, that's implicit. If I'm tired of rock music, that mostly comes into play when I'm exposed to it in some way.

> Stating that a whole country has problems with virtue is rather stigmatising

Speaking of, someone expressing their virtue -- and caring for the well being of sentient beings simply is, it's a capacity, and it annoys the people who lack it, because it raises the question why they lack it -- isn't automatically them "signalling" anything. That's just an attempt to stigmatise it.

recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48922972

If we don't have empathy with victims of that, who cares what we are "tired of"? We can torture animals, but don't stigmatise us, and don't talk about how you try to avoid feeding the systems that lead to animals being tortured. You can talk about how much you like your other new hobbies, but not this one. You cannot even wear a pin. Because we're so tired and you're so oppressive, with your virtue and your signals. Have empathy with my fear of empathy, basically.

I'm not even vegetarian but I'm more tired of that than them, because it's both evil and stupid, and projects that on vegans.

> something you'd complain about if it were about any country in what some have taken to call the "global South".

Many things play into this. One is the hesitation to punch down versus a superpower that spent many, many millions to signal, to broadcast, their virtue into the whole world for decades.

Really not caring about something also means not making a positive and false claim about it. What I said was relevant to that claim. That claim in turn was, according to your heuristics, not relevant (for daily coding).

How could it be? For example, each memory stick doesn't know beforehand what other memory sticks it will be used with, so the "physical" addressing of the memory on each stick has to be independent of the others, i.e. a local address, that gets mapped to a virtual one.

A bit of a tangent, but it's fascinating how often you hear these stories (and I experienced one, myself), of communities "moving to Facebook" and basically dissolving as a community. I would like to see a collection of such anecdotes, but I can see why it doesn't get compiled, because it would essentially just be [description of community] and then [Facebook], with no specifically interesting thing to report other than "it petered out". Same for Amazon, come to think of it. You can describe what used to be, and that it's now longer there, but there isn't really any compelling tale in it.

Even better is when you can only assign a priority once, ever. So if one thing was marked "urgent", nothing else can ever be "urgent" again. It can be "Urgent" or "double urgent" or "urgent for real this time", but not "urgent". Forces creativity and maybe even, depending on the size and business (as in "being busy") of the organization, the creation of whole new words after all existing permutations have been used, from which we all benefit.

> the features that they themselves would use

IMO that's worse.

> If you're making a plane, crashing 1 in 1000 times is terrible, if you're making some administrative thing which if it crashes costs 5 minutes work then it's likely fine

Yes, and if it doesn't crash it's better than fine. Objectively.

> I have handmade crafted products and I have assembly line products. Not only are the latter cheaper and more consistent, they're often better.

Completely ignoring the care and work that (ideally) goes into making and running the machines at assembly lines, and the cleaning that takes place every day, or sometimes several times a day, all the strict regulations. You cannot compare 99% of software engineering with food production in modern countries. Similar for furniture, it can hurt or even kill, and it would do at a much higher rate if it was made like most software is.

There's gross factory food, and super nice street food, there's healthy factory food and super gross street food. That has nothing to do with anything. All else being the same, you want the person who prepares your food or runs the factory to pay attention and not be sloppy, or you end up with food poisoning, glass shards, and other fun stuff. You just take allll of that for granted, instead of imagining how awesome computing could be if the people involved in it took it similarly seriously instead of just applauding their own laziness.

All you're saying is that for you only the destination ever mattered. But it's very apparent that is not true for a lot of people.

And "solving needs" is kinda vague. We drank from lead cups for a long time, because perfect knowledge of material and biology was secondary to just having a cup. And no single sip from any lead cup killed or maybe even much harmed any person, but it all added and adds up.

Of course the comparison with lead is kinda over the top, but it's just to illustrate the principle. If your software crashes the computer 1 out of 1000 runs, and it otherwise crucial and unique, people will still use it, and the longer and the more people use it, the more human lifetime it "destroys". If it would take you 1 year to find the source of the crash, it may not be worth it, if it would take you 30 minutes, it might be. You just won't get recompensated for it, you'd have to get satisfaction from it via something like craftsmanship.

Your users don't know either way, so it's your job to know. Saying it's not, everybody just has to be content with the transaction, is a bit like saying a doctor doesn't have to do medicine according to what they know is likely best, but according to what their patient thinks they need.

it is simply one meaning of the word, and you talking about something else instead a waste of time.

Then surely we shall go for thirteen at the least! I wasn't teying to be insulting though, I am just being playfully irreverent.

Someone says they like hip hop, and you imagine a young urban male with a baseball cap on backwards, how they view women, that they probably don't like musicals, something like that (not saying you do, but as an example). More than simply the thing they said. You say "I like or do that thing", and instantly get hit with "oh, people like you always complain about X but isn't it weird you never mention Y".

At least that's what I thought of when I read that; because answering in place of other people is another thing I find annoying. So I'm speaking for myself, but with some optimism I may have guessed the intent of OP correctly :)

How many people struggle with their computer, or get scammed, because to them it's just icons on a screen, with not even the concept of a process, memory vs. disk, or anything? How much money is lost each year because someone doesn't know what an URL is?

> You state “ignore these downsides” and “due to their own ignorance…”

What's the criticism? That you can't ignore something you're ignorant of?

[0] or maybe you don't understand what that means in the first place, making it impossible for you to hand wave it away [1]

I hate this style of discussion, "uhm akshually there's a piece of dust" that is just left hanging, as if that means the point is somehow diminished. And then there isn't even a piece of dust most of the time, or it's completely besides the point.

> Then you say “it replaces human interactions” which it absolutely does not. It seems the pro ai and anti ai crowd seem to have this misconception that humans are removed from the equation

If you replace one person giving another person an object with that person A leaving it at a dead drop and person B picking it up, you removed the interaction without removing the humans.

> when the reality is the position has shifted.

To where? You're just hand waving the removal of human interactions away [0], to say all that can be dismissed, instead it's something that means nothing at all.

"we haven't disconnected people, we just put them behind bulletproof glass on separate continents, we just shifted their position"

[1] See what I did there? I put the a footnote where it doesn't go, just as a little quirky thing, because why not.

"it's just like a compiler"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10319-8

Why would it need to be "new"? What does that even mean? It's relevant, it applies here, that's more than enough. And it would be brought up with any company if they dropped 1.3 LOC directly after nothing but a "promise" to delete data they took.

That in this context, it's about the wealth that leads to "having economic power over the people around you". That is zero sum, and the general rise in absolute living standards is as relevant to that as a comment about apples is in a discussion about Apple.

Aha! So you "hated the rich", now you turn around call people who say something negative about them as a class antisemites, basically using Jews to defend the rich against your own straw man / phantoms of the past.

Anyways, your quite pedestrian life story changes none of the data, e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...

Being aware of said data is not "hatred" or seeing things black and white.

awww for a second I thought you were maybe talking about something like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48905887

> The hockey stick upturn in recent centuries needs explanation.

Why? It goes up. As I said.

> I think it's silly to do that when we have an unbelievably dramatic increase in wealth in recent centuries which needs understanding first.

That's not pushing back, that's wanting to talk about something else first. That's just not something I'm interested in.

> distorting what wealth means?

It simply means both things, from context it was obvious how it was used in this instance, you ignoring that and going on tells me explaining it yet another time won't help.

> To think that slavery, ancient or modern, is caused by relative wealth differentials reveals an abysmal ignorance of both history and human nature.

I claimed no such thing, you read way too much into your missing the point.

> if the Vikings (or whoever) caught you alone, or outnumbered and overpowered your hired guards

Wait, I thought it was just because "some people do evil things", nothing to do with relative power?

    Fighting hard to catalogue
    Sacrifice for the disguise
    Disconnecting analogues
    Anything to synthesize
    Nothing here is what it seems
    Nothing can be recognized
    Perfect fit for the machine
    Everyone is synthesized

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70KCZxDbgko

> Maybe you should ask yourself why you believe that 1) access to resources and technology are "basically constantly rising"

Because people have and share ideas, and I was using that as a shorthand. Even if they aren't, if you completely strike that part -- my point remains completely untouched.

> why the relative difference in wealth today is more important than the (magical?) existence of a system were everyone has continually gotten more access to resources and technology

Because in the context of "Wealth is having economic power over the people around you.", that is the definition of wealth that is used. To quote a randomly picked one, emphasis mine:

"Large possessions; a comparative abundance of things"

> You are aware that the default state of humanity hasn't been one of continually increasing access to resources and technology?

There was no default "state", at least by the time you're talking about humans, we probably already learned from each other by observation. Sure, politics and wars and religion and feudal dynasties and whatever make bumps in the line, but generally it goes up. Once things get out, they're out, roughly speaking (that's the keyword here), and even in the animal kingdom.

And as I said, even if that's completely false, doesn't matter for the wider point about wealth, and that it can only buy you power over others if they have less of it.

I've known plenty of very rich people and they're just normal people, every bit as capable of loving or abusing their children as anyone. So while I kinda agree with the first half, your comment smacks of knowing less extremely wealthy people and still being at the stage where you're just so happy you bumped into a few and feel the need to glaze them, lacking the outlook and the jadedness available to someone like me (not to mention someone who knows even more rich people, or even is a rich themselves).

You are talking about access to resources and technologies, which is basically constantly rising, we couldn't stop that if we wanted to, so that's a given and more importantly orthogonal to the wealth that buys you goods and services.

The latter is absolutely zero sum, because of everybody has a billion, a billion isn't that much any more. E.g. human trafficking exists because some people are rich and others are poor, and the fact that even those poor people might have access to things an emperor 1000 years ago would have dreamed of doesn't change that, because the people who treat them like slaves have even more. It's all about the relative difference between people who are alive today, the absolute increase compared to people who lived N years ago is a red herring.