gmd63

Why not just copy and paste the model and change the name? That's an even more efficient form of distillation.

No. The people, over the course of long periods of time, voted for agencies to exist, through laws, that are controlled legally, according to laws that have evolved over time.

What is happening now is those agencies are being illegally co-opted by loyalists and sycophants who have shirked their constitutional duties as congressmen. They are ignoring the laws that describe how these agencies should be run, and it doesn't matter because it's a metastatic blob of folks who have forsaken their oath at the behest of a felon who avoided trial for sedition.

From my stint at a big corporation, the person I knew most closely who "succeeded" the most (for themselves, not for the company) would routinely interview for competitive offers and threaten to leave. I saw on a few occasions this same person lie in meetings to cover their ass to people who were less technical. I know of one person who has somehow managed to do the bare minimum at two full time remote jobs simultaneously.

To everyone reading the comments that describe corporations as the ones who treat their employees with contempt, it's sadly a two way street. It comes down to shitty people polluting expectations at all levels of society, and people dialing back their expectations accordingly.

With all the Luigi talk in the air, it's important to remember this goes for insurance companies as well. Insurance fraud is a huge drain on the industry and it's folks of all levels of wealth committing it. It's a part of the reason why insurers squeeze harder to keep the profits flowing. That's obviously no excuse for delay/deny/depose tactics--I'm just saying that in an environment of fraudsters who add friction to a company that does business honestly, you will find that the cheaters and bad actors will bubble to the top, more so than usual.

Exactly as you say. AI is imagined to be the wealthy nepotist's escape pod from an equal playing field and democratized access to information. Win at all cost soulless predators who find infinite sacrifice somehow righteous love games like the ones that macro-scale AI creates.

The average person's utility from AI is marginal. But to a psychopath like Elon Musk who is interested in deceiving the internet about Twitter engagement or juicing his crypto scam, it's a necessary tool to create seas of fake personas.

I've understood that social media companies deliberately do not identify as editors because they don't want to be responsible for generated feeds of users. Is this wrong? This is why I'm asking to see evidence of a specific person from a social media company taking direct responsibility over a user's consumed content.

When people see Milton getting locked up for four years, it's in no way proportional to the upside of making out with thousands of lifetimes worth of average honest work. If others who had done similar crimes before him had received more severe punishments he may have chosen not to.

That's not to mention the court's complete lack of concern for recidivism. Look at Bill Hwang. Slapped on the wrist for insider trading -> billions of dollars of later economic damage. Likely chance we'll see the same pattern of behavior from Milton. I'm generally for forgiveness and second chances, but not in the realm of steering thousands of lifetimes worth of honest economic influence.

Agreed. TikTok allows people to speak into the app, and to receive speech, but the act of organizing and strategically disseminating the speech is not speech -- it's societal scale hormone regulation and should be controlled for the health of the national body. It's wild that so many people are up in arms about TikTok when it is a Chinese app that is banned in China, where apps are heavily restricted.

For anyone who does consider these algorithms speech, I challenge you to share a single person at any social media company who has taken direct responsibility over a single content feed of an individual user. How can speech exist if nobody is willing to take ownership of it?

I disagree. Trevor Milton, the Nikola Motors fraudster CEO will be out after a laughable four years. That's a complete joke.

That article says nothing that suggests Hindenburg is "part of the problem", only that they had received requests for information in line with an investigation.

If you don't support the current punishments, which evidently don't deter the crime, what's your idea of how they should be strengthened to adequately deter financial crime? I'm not trolling.

That's not even close to comparable. You vote for elected officials to pass bills that are attempted and sometimes failed. And often failed projects produce things of value to society so I'm not sure how you would factor that in, for example if you'd like a refund on the Challenger explosion. You don't vote for criminals to take your money.

Money grants you the power to influence others' lives. You take that from people illegally, and give it to yourself, you're creating an extreme negative effect on economic efficiency that should not be taken lightly and should be heavily discouraged.

Bill Hwang had settled insider trading charges a decade or so before he caused 30 billion dollars of liquidations after engaging in multiple forms of financial fraud. His insider trading punishment was likely lax and he committed crimes again, causing even more economic damage.

18 years in prison is nowhere near the amount of economic damage he caused. He amassed a net worth of 10-15 billion dollars. That's ten thousand average lifetimes worth of average American work. The punishment should reflect that. The expected value of fraud should be negative so that not even a degenerate gambler would consider it.

Can you explain your views as to why incentives to harm the economy massively via fraud to benefit yourself need to exist?

An increase in failures to deliver does not imply an increase in naked shorting.

Why would an investigation committee need to recommend that a company fill vacant financial and accounting executive positions? What you're saying makes no sense.

The first line of that article is

"New financial and accounting executives will be appointed, as recommended by the investigation committee"

I agree that harm is possible when short selling and lying about it.

Some shareholders seek fraud as it has the potential for the highest short term returns. The sooner we exile those folks the better.

I completely agree about the dangers and am disgusted by the story you shared and others like it.

In an ideal world nobody would commit a crime. Sadly we're far from an ideal world, and the US authorities in my experience are not well funded enough to adequately cover the ground they're responsible for. We also have a populace that voted for a felon who hates the IRS and has cronies who have floated dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so short sellers will have to do.

And the betting markets like Polymarket are worse. They had bets as to whether the fires in LA would be contained by certain dates. You can imagine the perverse incentives that creates.

I've ironically lost more money the more closely I've paid attention to my investments because I was naively confident in the market's ability (or as I've come to suspect, willingness) to react to evidence of fraud.

The amount of deceit put out into the world and gobbled up, on purpose, in business is obscene and seriously depressing. The magnitude of damage to psyches and thus economies that anyone acting in a fraudulent manner in finance creates is far-reaching and immeasurable. Punishment for financial crimes should be calculated based on the average lifetime earnings of a citizen -- if your victims are folks earning at or below the average wage, and you've scammed 100 lifetimes worth of average earnings, it's as if you've murdered 100 people.

Hindenburg's reports were a true pleasure to read, and their track record proves their positive contribution to society. Many self-important people online are quick to pounce on short sellers as being evil, and that will forever be a serious red flag to me thanks in no small part to Nate Anderson and the folks at Hindenburg Research.

Sounds like you agree with me.

I get this is a joke but I don't find it accurate or funny. Most of this behavior that I've noticed has been from non-politician humans doing their jobs or running their companies and trying to get ahead without merit. Pretending it's more common in politics when it's just as pervasive in business is a weird trope that feels convenient for Elon Musk / Trump types who denigrate politicians with actual integrity that are going after them for "lying, cheating, stealing, and scheming".

Functionality doesn't exist if it's not communicated, whether through intuitive UI or documentation. Much like laws don't exist if they're not enforced.

"The results overwhelmingly favored entrepreneurs, who evidenced significantly lower blood pressure and hypertension rates, fewer hospital visits, and reduced incidence of physical and mental illnesses."

How many times do we need to repeat the basic statistical fact that correlation does not equal causation? We need to teach this in grade school because it is lost on so many people.

You can think up many attributes of entrepreneurs that might explain lower stress in general: more entrepreneurs likely come from wealth, have resources to start a business, have a sense of confidence in themselves etc.

No, but there are many who use AI to mass produce drivel

> Legacy ad-based search has devolved into a wasteland of misaligned incentives, conflict of interest and content farms optimized for ads and algos instead of humans.

> Path forward requires solving the core challenge: actually surfacing the content people want to see, not what intermediaries want them to see

These traps and patterns are not inevitable. They happen by choice. If you're actively polluting the world with AI generated drivel or SEO garbage, you're working against humanity, and you're sacrificing the gift of knowing right from wrong, abandoning life as a human to live as some insectoid automaton that's mind controlled by "business" pheromones. We are all working together every day to produce the greatest art project in the universe, the most complex society of life known to exist. Our selfish choices will tarnish the painting or create dissonance in the music accordingly.

The problem will be fixed only with culture at an individual level, especially as technology enables individuals to make more of an impact. It starts with voting against Trump next week, rejecting the biggest undue handout to a failed grifter who has no respect for law, order, or anyone other than himself.

While folks such as the Reply All podcast believed and shared the story that big tech uses clever ways to infer what you’re talking about based on indirect information such as search history of other users close to you, Cox Media Group has in the past admitted its software is used to create ad cohorts based on “Active Listening” that’s legal because it’s buried in Terms of Service agreements that customers agree to when they download apps their software is bundled into.

Any kindergartner with a good heart would tell you immediately that the companies targeted by this rule are doing it wrong. That there are so-called professional adults who enjoy any level of respect or status in society running said businesses is a joke.

I would rather die than deliberately cause a humongous speed bump in the history of human understanding of the universe like this guy did. And the choice is never that stark. It's usually "id rather work in a less highly paid role".

To selfishly discard the collective attention of scientific experts for undue gain is despicable and should disqualify a person from all professional status indefinitely in addition to any legal charges.

I deeply respect anyone whose desires align with winning the collective game of understanding that science should be. I respect even more those folks who speak up when their colleagues or even friends seek to hack academia like this guy did.

Just because something is not affordable doesn't mean its affordable alternative is a viable option, especially when information asymmetries caused by foreign manufacture obscure plastic explosives in the devices or whatever triggered these.

It is the same attitude. "Outsourcing is the only way we can be competitive" / "Buying these cheap pagers is the only way we can afford it"

Another example of why outsourcing manufacturing is a national security concern, and how the absolute free market can lead "winners" to harm themselves by chasing "success" at all costs.

The anti nitpicking attitude is the core point of the parent commenter's post. I agree with sensible prioritization as exemplified in the linked article, as should everyone. But the author of the comment I'm responding to is expressing discomfort with a culture that identifies holes in their reasoning. They're so uncomfortable with having details of their arguments challenged that they aren't saying what they really want to say.

I know an "anti nitpicker" who is entirely opposite to that attitude when it comes to their social appearance and perception. One hair on their tie is catastrophic. One publicly searchable webpage that shows a decades old picture of them is an extreme problem that warrants hiring a company to clean up. It's interesting how, in matters that are important to some of these people, seemingly inconsequential and irrelevant details suddenly matter to an extraordinary degree.

The anti nitpicking stance is a byproduct of the extreme overvaluation of social perception. Often these people do not like to look like they have made a mistake. And thus they avoid conflict or paint it as irrelevant in belief that it will save their appearance.