delusional

You replaced the rote recitation of faceless homework with engagement from an authority. She was not interested in the sequence of numbers, but interested in your interest. She loves you, and is reflecting your engagement back at you in hopes of getting more validation. Children do that a lot.

You describe the homework as

> basically lots or practice in basic arithmetic

Which is absolutely what you need for these sequences to have any meaning. There is no "pure math" to have a game about, without the "pathetic" examples of Lucy's 5 apples and Tom's 2. If somebody hadn't (brutally) drilled the concept of numbers into her skull, the sequences of random symbols would not mean anything to her.

Engaging with your child, who has already been partially socialized, is not proof that this socialization wasn't necessary. For that, you would have to have locked your daughter in the basement for those 7 years, and then find that she was spontaneously able to do multiplication. That is not going to happen.

> No, you really, really should not be brutal to little children.

I hope you understand that _brutality_ as spiritual. It's the brutality of going against nature, of putting a monkey in a suit and locking it in an office for 8 hours a day to feed itself. You don't beat math into your children, but they sure as hell don't learn it from eating candy and watching Minecraft let's plays.

> we can, hopefully, move past cookie-cutter education solutions and recognize the need for more hands-on, engaged education.

I'm not convinced children need "hands-on, engaged" education at the age of 10. At some point there's no shortcut to being socialized that patterns in numbers are interesting (which is one of the national goals of maths for 3rd graders in my country). 10 year olds won't find that stuff "engaging" on their own, they must be informed by authority figures that it's a thing worth paying attention to.

Too much of this "fuck the schools" mentality treats children as perfect little beings that must only be supported to grow into wonderful adults, when the reality is that socializing children is a brutal exercise in fitting them into norms.

By the time the bankruptcies come, they'll all be owned by index funds and main street. The price will crash at the break of the bankruptcy, and wall street will swoop in to buy up the "distressed assets" at bargain bin prices.

> We hid our “we know better” hubris under the term “disruption” because the reality (breaking everything) was a little too unsettling for us.

That's not quite right. For a decade, the silicon valley mantra was "Move fast and break things", and it was largely accepted as a good thing. The prevailing wisdom was that this "internet" thing was going to fundamentally change the structure of human society, and nothing would ever be the same again. We ignored the laws, and society broadly accepted that those laws weren't fit for this new world of abundance and information freedom anyway. Big tech was offered broad protection from any responsibility through laws such as Section 230, which basically says they can't be blamed for anything, as long as they structure their services as a "market".

After 20 years, I think we've found that actually the structure of human society has remained largely the same. The things we all need are still the same. The only thing we actually disrupted was the economy, such that we now can't produce and disburse the things we need.

Nope. Nice try though.

We were able to invent a chip that already existed so fast, you guys.

AI does not make anything new, it is not surprising that it can regurgitate what already exists much faster than humans can invent new things.

AI code, even from the top models from the top labs is distinctly inhuman. If you can't see the difference, you are a terrible programmer.

> Carmack hasn't produced anything noteworthy since AI was invented, therefore, how productive can it really be?

He's been spinning his wheels for a while. Carmack is a great example of how important working on the right stuff is. He's undoubtedly a brilliant programmer. Through him we get to see that a brilliant programmer working on non-programming tasks, can produce nothing.

We are witnessing a generational lack of accountability and concern for the commons. We are being spied on everywhere we go, we are exposed to coercive advertisements at every waking moment. All of this at the hands of private actors. And your worry is the government?

I'm assuming you're a US citizen. There is no separation between your government and Sam or Dario. Neither of these guys have to be "gagged" by the government, they are the government. The call is coming from inside the house.

Everybody working on AI agents should go to jail with no access to computers again. Like the kids of xbox underground.

A retraction from the gaming market wouldn't necessarily mean they'd still even produce the current crop of products. I could (and I would argue would) involve a complete shuttering of the GeForce brand, halting current production. On the assumption that Intel and AMD would follow, that wouldn't be an end of upgrades, but an end to the market.

> Electrek has a bias against Tesla/Musk, IMHO and so tend to paint everything in a negative way.

I would say Tesla and Musk are a little bit worse here than Siemens or Honda or whatever. Usually the manufacturers don't lie quite as loudly about the future of the product.

I'm sure Tesla has been more opaque then other manufacturers, but I agree that the consequence here is just normal course of business stuff.

Coming from a family of local contractors, some of whom install HVAC and such. Most of them probably understood this. It's part of the business. Pretty much every product, you are going to install, has some sort of training required, to install it properly, such that the manufacturer warranty isn't voided.

That'll be in space by mid next month*

I don't care about any of your examples. I am explicitly not talking about Iran, China, Russia, Takedown requests by the UK, "downsizing" the government, or "remigration". I have opinions about all that, but it is not what I'm talking about here.

I am talking about weaponized trade relations, such as coupling embargoes or tariffs, to inner market fines. I am talking about explicitly threatening allies for enforcing their own legally sanctioned laws inside their sovereign territory. I am, in part, talking about threatening allies with invasion, if they don't do what you want.

Yes, Twitter frontpage should include a little counter with how much child exploitation it has facilitated today.

I don't think there's a single politician in Bruxelles that wouldn't love to come down hard on X. There is no love for Elon in those circles anymore. The problem is that he's attached himself to international politics through his daddy. Trump has threatened the EU with strict sanctions if they levy any sort of proportional fine to US tech companies.

The problem is no longer capitalist liberalism. The new challenge is American Fascism.

> they vote based on their assessment of your judgment and whether you broadly share their ideas about what "good" and "bad" are.

You can't really simplify it to such a degree. I believe humans are creatures of action. We like it when things happen. Sometimes, not all the time but sometimes, our morals are downstream of that desire to "be effective". We will align ourselves, no matter the violence we have to do to our own senses, with what is useful.

Specifically, their willingness to skeptically engage with your five-point plan demands that you're actually able to execute it. If you categorically can't make anything happen, then people will cling to an explanation and a morality that can. American democracy has been at a standstill for upwards of 30 years, If the American people have to believe that all their politicians are pedophiles to get some sort of movement again. Then that's what they are going to believe.

> he populist message of Trump but coming from the left, people like Mamdani, the DSA candidates, etc.

Leading but honest question: Are those candidates the same as Trump? I do not see how they share anything other than strategy and spin, and those things don't make policy.

I don't think it's helpful to suggest that "both sides" are equal in American politics, but I do think you have to be a least a little understanding that the democrats aren't an attractive alternative to most Americans. I'm afraid a pretty large minority of Americans have landed in the lose-lose position of "if i can't make it better, i might as well make it worse faster".

You're forgetting that their president was threatening literal invasion. These things take time.

I'm not an expert here, but I don't think you're supposed to backfeed electricity into your panel while you're connected to the grid. Doing something like this (historically at-home solar) you'd need a way to disconnect from the grid physically, at least if you wanted to reuse your home wiring.

Now, you could use the battery as a pass through power source, but then you'd have to change all the wiring in your home.

> You talk. It models. Physics checks the work.

How does physics "check the work"? Do you run a physics engine? Do you make it in reality and do physical tests? What the fuck?

Gets this slop away from me.

How do you figure out they are "getting high value from it"

What if they feel like they are getting value from it, but are actually not?

If I had to pay $10k salary for a certain job previously, but I now have to pay $10k + $2k for the same job. Why would I not care about that? You were doing your job perfectly well previously, why do you want more budget?

> A negative result is only truly useful if it can be bounded, requiring an actual proof.

That's at least true for current journals, since they're supposed to be read by actual humans. I suppose one could imagine a sort of "AI" pure data journal that just "publishes" (in actuality aggregates) any sort of partial result. This body of knowledge would be entirely useless to humans, but could serve as a sort of "computation cache" for these stochastic systems.

This reads either AI generated, or written by someone who has gotten too used to AI writing. The structure is off and filled with "Here's what happened next" and "Why that matters" and "X happens, not Y" without context for why I'd care, or why I'd expect Y.

> I want my browser to prevent random extensions from directly reading web page data.

Fine, then don't install them?

It's like saying you want your TV to stop random people from watching it, but the obvious solution to that problem is to not invite random people into your living room.

There's a much more simple and much more efficient way to do it: Policy and Legal contract.

This ideas was last examined in Germany around 1930. They landed on a term for these "stupid" people, namely "useless eaters". Then they committed genocide.

They claimed these problems LONG before agents were the new thing. To my eye it started with the bullshit around GPT-2, and that was in 2019, 7 years ago.