hexator

We're not talking about famine, we're talking about people living in poverty? What's your argument here? That because nobody dies of malnutrition we don't have true poverty?

I can definitely see a situation where a renting single-earner six-figure household in a place like SF may require assistance. It's all about the relative cost of living and financial situation, you can't really make ground pronouncements like this without ignoring the data.

Living paycheck to paycheck is not the same thing as being in poverty

You can debate the exact statistics all you want, but to anyone not well off right now, both in the US and the UK, it's pretty clear there's a growing cost of living crisis and governments are failing to address it. Frankly a lot of people here have no idea what living in poverty means.

That's a pretty radical claim. Do you have any sources?

edit: so many downvotes from asking a simple question

Well, you're right that this isn't journalism per se. But it's not trying to be, so your comment is a bit weird. Nobody is confusing the ACLU with CNN.

I'm not talking about cultural differences. I'm talking about people simply being assholes online. You will always have a group of people complaining about the rules, that is inevitable.

"virtues" is just a loaded word now unfortunately.

"enforce a set of virtues" is a weird way of saying "enforcing basic decency". Let's be clear here, people who are rightfully banned are always going to complain. Our opinions as the majority who DO want decent conversations online are not irrelevant. We should not give those people equal weight to those facing actual censorship. Fragmenting the internet will never get rid of the problem that moderation needs to happen.

Speaking of people who are very articulate and also very wrong.

This person doesn't seem aware of their contradictions in both complaining about people not following diverse viewpoints and also downright dismissing any amount of self-reflection that might be coming from people to their left.

That's true, the point I was making was that it's about you decide to trust with sending you news not just the outlet. The problem is that many people who are rightfully distrustful of traditional media end up following cranks. And Substack seems to be the place where the cranks hang out.

Not sure what the point of this is other than to complain about being out of touch with the world. Too many people think "diversifying your information" means subscribing to whatever drivel they find on substack instead of, you know, following a diverse set of _actual journalists_.

I find it to be a dangerous ideology since it can effectively be used to justify anything. I joined an EA group online (from a popular YouTube channel) and the first conversation I saw was a thread by someone advocating for eugenics. And it only got worse from there.

> A paradox of effective altruism is that by seeking to overcome individual bias through rationalism, its solutions sometimes ignore the structural bias that shapes our world.

Yes, this just about sums it up. As a movement they seem to be attracting some listless contrarians that seem entirely too willing to dig up old demons of the past.

Telling poor people we're living in an era of abundance is not a little bit tone deaf. Also, having a car doesn't make one not poor— A car in America is not a luxury, it's a requirement to have a job in most places.

Understanding poverty starts with empathy. People thinking that "poor is a mindset" are lacking in that. It's not that simple! You can't just mind your way out of poverty! This isn't a math problem.

The only rail privatization success story, that being the rail system in Japan, for some reason is not replicated much elsewhere. You make money on development, not running trains. You will never make money on public transportation, nor should you—it's a public service.

Sure, but that can't last.

From reading some of the reactions to this post, this quote comes to mind by Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

There are a lot of people here who have spent a lot of time, money, and effort building AI products. And they may be good and worthwhile! I'm literally one of them. But you still see some people totally underestimate this public-facing trust collapse and the growing anti-AI sentiment in general.

The cost to create content is not zero. People across the board are underestimating the cost to run AI.

Solarpunk with capitalism is kinda missing the point IMO.

If you read the post, you would learn that it only reports on news from the same day.

He didn't say anything violent and you are spreading misinformation saying he is. That is why your comment got removed.

You can watch the monologue here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk&t=122s

Where exactly did he say anything remotely violent

The original comment implied that white people were losing jobs to non-white people (it has since been deleted by HN)

It's sad this racist crap is so upvoted here...

You can find good content on almost any platform. The problem is when the negatives become so overwhelming, in your face, and hard to ignore, that you feel like it's moving away from what you want it to be. It's not hard to find good tech conversations on Bluesky, they're just lower volume.

Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://www.newyorker.com/maga...

This is probably the most definitive guide on the subject. Rather famous in the procedural generation community

The obvious answer would be some sort of consumer AI assistant, like Siri but better.