grunder_advice

That is true, however beef was always somewhat of a luxury in many European regions, simpily due to geography and population density. We don't have a lot of cheap grazing land to raise cattle on. And if you have cattle it's typically more economical to use them for diary than meat.

Yes, it's one of the few EU countries that is suitable for cattle.

Beef is already too expensive for most people. Americans are probably the exception but I can assure you that most Europeans do not have beef heavy diets. Even culturally, pork (and now chicken) were the proteins of choice.

I find your framing somewhat historically inaccurate. China did not make an "autocratic bargain" with its people. Democracy and Liberalism are offshoots of Christian culture that originated in Europe and spread to the former European colonies (including to Venezuela and Argentina) and post-WWII to the allies. Although China flirted briefly with liberalism and democracy those remained foreign concepts and did not permeate Chinese culture.

So therefore to me a more correct historical reading is that China, a fairly insular culture, was pretty much always ruled as an authoritarian inward focused realm and it still is today. I think it is also an unjustified assumption that China would fare better under a liberal democratic regime. For example, currently the CCP keeps all the Chinese oligarchs in check. A liberal democratic China would find it much harder to control those oligarchs.

Argentina and Venezuela are completely different situations where the population is a mix of different cultures and ethnicities and unlike China they had been injected with a heavy dose of western liberal democratic tradition before they regressed back to authoritarianism.

Bottom line is, I think people tend to have this really weird blind spot to culture and history when they discuss politics.

I feel the need to correct the record. The only reason, there is this racist stereotype in some western countries that such and such ethnicities are not working, is because those countries make it exceedingly hard for those ethnicities to gain employment. For example requiring language fluency and forcing immigrants to attend language school full time instead of giving them a mop and a bucket and a minimum wage. In places where this banal legislation does not exist those same ethnicities are working fine in mixed ethnicity factory floors alongside Poles and Romanians.

And btw those same countries who make it super hard for, for example Syrians, to gain employment, then made a whole bunch of exceptions for Ukrainians. For example in Germany, Syrians without full command of German were told to attend language schools, but when the Ukrainians arrived they suddenly made exceptions and suddenly in our department we had Ukrainian cleaning crew who spoke neither German nor English.

IMHO, Google, Meta and Microsoft are best positioned to be the last ones standing because they have alternative cashflows. The danger with OpenAI and Anthropic is that they might end up being the Sun Microsystems of the AI era. It will only takes them a couple of misteps along the wrong technology path for them to be out of the game.

I feel, like a lot of 21st century life is trying to do things artificially. Going to the gym, talking to strangers at the gym, ... these are both artifical replacements for human activity that is missing. You go to the gym because your daily routine isn't active enough. You try to form friendships with strangers because your daily routine lacks real and fulfilling interactions with other people.

Also it's kind of odd how nowadays everyone goes to the gym. Growing up as a late-stage millenial, gym goers were a niche subculture. Now it marketed to everyone everywhere as this integral part of modern daily life.

Thanks for the correction, I guess I was mistaken. I always had this mistaken belief that moving data is less energy intensive.

The trick we use at work is to take note of the instantenous power consumed. The more it's consuming the more compute it is doing. As far as macro indicators, I'm not sure you can do better than that, without profiling.

I've held green tech stocks in the past but never made a dime out of them. There was a pattern to them. First there'd be demand, then the factories in China will turn on and suddenly there's a glut so the price goes back down. Then the factories would shut off again and the cycle repeats. I wonder if that's still happening.

Exactly. At some point, the specification becomes so complex, it's easier to just write the code yourself.

It's why famously, programmers always say, the code is the documentation, because writing detailed docs is very tedious and nobody wants to do it.

I guess I'm pro-natalist. I do agree with you on the goal of eradicating poverty, although to me that's a goal in itself that does not need to be justified. But I don't agree that all people on earth are fungible, and a birth in Mongolia is the same as a birth is Sydney, Australia.

Your "human achievement" viewpoint is highly reductive. The culture of a place is maintained by it's local population. When you have a low birth rate situation to the point that you need to supplement the workforce with immigrants, that signifies that the local culture is slowly dying. While some mixing of cultures is beneficial, we should also try to perserve our local cultures. We should not turn every city in the developed world into a little NYC.

I mean, they need to wrap the statistics in a narrative. That's the medium of delivery. But the statistics don't lie: birthrates are well below replacement levels.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/05/japan-records-...

Yeah, I don't think you're going to have much luck with that mentality.

Personally, I cannot think of a worst hell than having to be married to somebody who was forced to be with me. Yikes.

I think dating apps are a flawed concept irrespective of profit motives. They reduce men to their appearance and the most overt displays of wealth. Then they line them up against the wall, and they ask women to pick who they like best... For the men among us who will be among the most handsome and wealthiest in any given room, it works really well.

Yeah, in particular now that index funds are well known and very common one wonders what risk one is exposed to when one is dumping everything into broad market index funds.

It's not like relations between China and the West aren't already as hostile as the West can tolerate.

If I've learned something during my early adulthood it's that, it's impossible to not be in conflict with at least some people, because even if you're the most fair and considerate person on the planet, other people will prey on you to try to encroach on your territory and steal what you have.

So the idea that you have nothing to hide is completely banal. Those who are more powerful than you won't leave you alone just because you ignore them. They will eventually come knocking to steal your wealth and your freedom.

What makes Grok special compared to random "AI gf generator 9001" which is hosted specifically with the intent of generating NSFW content?

That's only because you're using broad strokes. If you look at the top 0.1% and the top 0.01% and the top 0.001% you'll see that as you go to the extreme end the share of the total household wealth does tend upwards. Please see my other post for some numbers.

I think this is just because wealth distribution is a powerlaw with extreme concentration at the far end. For example in this graph you can see a trend, the closer to the top, the steeper the line.

https://imgur.com/a/6omRYu3

As an extreme case, let's look at the top 3 billionaires in 2000 and 2025 respectively.

2000 Gates, Ellison, Allen $135 billion vs. $42.0 trillion ≈0.32 %

2025 Musk, Ellison, Zuckerberg $957 billion vs. $172.9 trillion ≈0.55 %

Exactly. Most propaganda is about embellishment and fear mongering that completely destroys the ability of the individual to accurately access the topic at hand.

I don't discount that people have different values and interests. I said that propaganda compounds on those divisions. I think aligning values is also something that is actionable, but that's another topic altogether. My general feeling is that our democracies would be much healthier without embellished fake new narratives about what is happening around us, irrespective of how different our values might be.

For example, let's take global warming as an example. The embellished fake news narrative is that any action at all to reduce our carbon footprint will bring about complete economic collapse, and that global warming is fake news anyway and extreme weather has a completely intangible effect on the life of people living today.

Both of those are false embellished fake news narratives that build upon real concerns. It's true that we should keep the economic health of the nation in frame when we discuss measures. It's true that we might to some extent insure ourselves against natural distastes. But the fake news narrative is the embellishment of these concerns.

Thanks for making this point. I 100% agree. I think previously the way politics worked, there was an element of people keeping each other in check. Now everyone can become as radicalized as their individual limits allow them to become because they live in a personally crafted narrative.

Propaganda always builds on real greviences that the electorate has.

It's good that you bring up housing. There are, to my knowledge no political parties that have made housing their top agenda item. They only use housing as a talking point to serve their message. For example the extreme right will just say, immigrants are occupying all the housing supply. The extreme left will say it's just capitalism that is to blame.

Pretty much all western countries are experiencing a crisis of democracy. It seems to me that the biggest contributor to this is the vulnerability of the electorate. It seems to me that it has become possible to hijack the minds of individuals with sustained propaganda campaigns.

You have individuals who at best completely a BSc in Business Studies, and you are asking them to decide on COVID or climate change. That by itself is a hard ask. Then you infiltrate their content consumption habits and you bombard them with propaganda. And then these people are asked to decide on the future of the nation. This of course only compounds on the natural divisions that are already present within the electorate.

I'm not immune from this, and neither are you. I don't know what the solutions should be and how CS graduates in particular can help. It just seems to me that we haven't developed enough on a social level to deal with these challenges.

Yep, in all EU countries, this would lead to country wide protests with the usual result being the fall of the government and new elections. Seems like the US is missing this element of democracy.

SV was always full of limp wristed callous nerds who hate those they consider to be beneath them. Back them they called themselves libertarians or ancaps or something along those lines, but fundamentally nothing has changed.

The fear was widespread across the whole European continent at the time. I don't think you can put the blame on any one person. I think it's entirely natural to be afraid of an invisible undetactable danger that will give you cancer. Many other such fears, due to other environmental pollutions are present today, however justified or not they might be.

Fukushima sure, but a lot of women were traumatized by Chernobyl and the news of a cloud of radioactive dust that was going to give them all cancer. I think Fukushima just reingnited those fears.