dml2135

Wow, I could not disagree with this more. What’s valuable about a novel is the social relationships it fosters, both in relation to the author, and also all the others that have read it. I read a book to better understand what other people are thinking, how they see the world — both directly from the author, and indirectly, in discovering what other readers may have found valuable.

I can maybe understand finding value in a machine-written novel if others also read it and enjoyed it, but having an LLM spit out a novel and reading it in isolation, that would be a complete waste of time to me.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it actually looks like this rule does not take the price of the degree into account at all.

As a fellow arts graduate, I strongly agree. I’ve seen many friends and colleagues fall into catastrophic student loan debt as they tried to find some direction in life, helpfully exploited by universities along the way. It’s borderline predatory.

The issue IMO is precisely that taxpayers don’t pay, they give out loans. Yes, sometimes those loans are “forgiven”, but only after decades of struggle and distress. And I put forgiven in scare quotes because often the original balance has been paid by then anyway.

Not providing loans for programs that will not provide the means for a student to repay them is the right thing to do, as those loans are a path for the exploitation of the student.

This is getting somewhere but the criteria is too crude, and doesn’t take the cost of the school into account.

A better criteria would be, does the increase in salary that the degree program provides allow the student to pay off the cost of the degree in ten years (the length of the standard repayment plan).

It’s not really a big deal if a degree didn’t increase your earnings, provided your school was cheap. If your degree is worthless AND your school was expensive though, the results can be catastrophic.

They’re supposed to stay in debt for the rest of their lives, clearly.

If you are leasing a car they would certainly also require you to obtain insurance as part of your lease agreement. Same deal with an apartment.

Should car insurance be included in the price of a car? You have the freedom to purchase insurance from whoever.

Well, some of those examples are instances of not being able to prioritize a good thing. That can be due to an unethical decision, but can also be due to needing to prioritize other things, possibly better things.

The unethical part of the example that I was referring to is, you have the good thing built, but you are refusing to give it to some people, for bad reasons.

A requirement to obtain renter’s insurance is not an example of the type of fees this legislation is targeting.

I don’t know what standards you are referring to, but yea I would call it flagrantly unethical for sure.

Wait, someone actually brought N64 Dinosaur Planet to life? I gotta check this out...

That’s a bit of a dramatic way to describe opening a window.

Still, reuse > recycling

> but every time we do that we also take from the artist

No, every time we do that, we do not give to the artist. But not giving is not the same as taking.

Ew

Haha I was obviously being a bit tongue-in-cheek, and it’s not true every time, but yes I do generally appreciate the wacky convos with cabbies when I land, it feels like a warm welcome home.

Your comment resonated with me because this doesn’t really happen when just taking ubers around town. I don’t really know what’s special about the drive from JFK — maybe the length? or the drivers being used to picking up tourists, who are more chatty? — that brings out the hustle chat and conspiracy theories, but I guess it’s a thing!

Are you kidding me? That's like my favorite part about landing at JFK. How else am I supposed to keep up with the latest crypto developments?

You'd be surprised at how many people will only see the latter. When they introduced congestion pricing in NYC, there were actually people who were commenting, completely unironically, along the lines of "There's no way I'm going to pay that, I'll just take the train. That'll show em!"

They 100% saw the fee as solely a means to tax residents, and didn't even consider that the primary purpose could be to change behavior.

There are billion-dollar entities preparing to fight this very question out in court as we speak.

Your interpretation of the law is certainly plausible, but it is clearly not a settled question.

If you really are so confident, go bet on Kalshi and make some easy money: https://kalshi.com/markets/kxnytoai/new-york-times-wins-open...

Are there any court cases you can point to that have clearly established that using LLM generated code can be a copyright violation? My understanding is that this is very far from being settled law.

Your bank is very likely doing just that. They even send you a notice about it every year.

As TFA states, in NYC the assessed value of a home and the market value of a home are wildly different, with the assessed value being much, much lower.

This is $1mil in assessed value which would translate to roughly $5mil in market value.

In NYC $1mil market value is pretty much the starting price for a 1-bedroom condo in a gentrified area. $5mil market value, on the other hand, is a pretty luxurious place.

This is really more about raising revenue for the city than increasing the housing supply.

I get your point, but people still have chores to do today. Ultimately, there is a big difference between doing work for yourself, and doing work for someone else for a wage.

In one instance you keep the value you are creating, in the other it goes to your employer.

Given the choice between the two I would much prefer to work for myself, as a matter of dignity.

I don't think it's self-evident that we've gained by switching from horses to cars. For most of the trips one makes in their daily life, the ubiquity of cars just means that you now have to travel greater distances. Plus the environmental devastation that cars have wrought. Are we really better off?

You give examples of transitions that happened, but you have made no argument about how those transitions made us better off. It is not self-evident that a change in technology is necessarily an improvement.

Plenty of people don't like cars to this day.

The example I had in mind was actually audio equipment. Like, clearly the high end stuff gets into diminishing returns to a point somewhere between absurdity and mysticism. But I’ve also had a friend that was completely convinced that vinyl sounds the same as spotify, and that anyone who thought otherwise was just a pretentious poseur.

At what point does optimizing the experience for those who refuse to read or think stop making sense?