jonkho

Then don’t monetize. No one is coercing anyone to do anything they themselves don’t wish to. Those creators that don’t want to monetize their own labor...can still choose to not monetize. There is no coercion here.

Leverage still outperforms fixed interest payments. Rising home prices compound on previous years’ appreciation. Your leverage rides on the back of this compounding. In contrast, your interest payments are fixed on the value of the dollars the year the loan was written.

The easy answer is this: these tests exist. Since no computer put to the turing test has passed, simply look up the test and observe how humans have induced the computer to fail.

In practice, a good class of tests to use is a test that must evoke an emotional response to produce a sensical answer. An example is art interpretation. Questions involving allegory. Interpret a poem etc.

Important to note that whatever the challenge is, it must always be a new example - as in never been seen before. Anything that is already in the existing corpus, the computer can simply look up what is already out there. In other words, there is no one concrete thing you can use again and again repeatedly.

Example of test that would foil a computer: A personally written poem and having discussion about it.

Exactly. The computer will fail such a test where such tests can only be passed if and only if the agent under test experiences subjective states. Since humans can always craft this class of tests, and the computer cannot pass it, it will always fail the "Turing Test".

This means that the semantics of the language is rooted in subjective states. Restated, this means humans "understand" language because of humans' emotions. Computers may "understand" language too, but it surely will not be due to the subjective states as it is with humans. If we define AI as a computer that must "understand" language the same way as humans do, then by definition, AI is not possible.

I second this. To further illustrate that semantics is far more than syntax and that emotions are an inseparable part of understanding language, do the following experiment: take any word or concept and look up its definition in a dictionary. Take note of the words used in the definition and look up the meaning of those words. Repeat recursively and if you go far enough down the tree you will find that all words lead to self-recursive definitions that state "it is a feeling of" this or that. This is proof that semantics of language - and intelligence required to grasp it's semantics - is inseparable from subjective states.

Two decades of exporting the US dollar for low-cost Chinese goods. Now the Chinese has fistfuls of US 'paper coupons' and have to redeem them somewhere (US real estate). US home prices go up for everyone. It's tit for tat. No free lunch.

I also think Marionette is awesome and enforces modularity. The author mentions, "View A handling events from View B and vice-versa" which makes me think that he's may not be following the adage of "signal up/invoke down"; He may be just wiring up listeners in an adhoc manner and not establishing clear ancestor/child relationships with his views.

This is a legit. The concept comes down to if you know the diff of your models/collections, do you really need to do all the work that React does with diff-ing the virtual DOM to know what to render? If you know the diffs of the models/collections, and the logic of handling the diffs is bound via one-way binding through the mix-in then I do believe this is efficient and viable. I also would like others to discuss about this.

The flaw in your argument is that currency is subjected to demand pressures as well. How so? When demand for housing, food, electronics is high, then it automatically implies demand for currency is low. That is another way of saying people are willing to give up currency for real goods; which is another way of saying people are putting less value on the currency over physical goods; which means the barter power of the currency is decreasing; which means lower buying power with respect to the currency. That is key point. This means that there is rise in prices (without monetary intervention) when there is preference to own goods. And we all want goods and services in the end game. But this rise in prices do not spiral out of control because there is demand for currency as well - which really is demand for time preference, that being the choice to consume later on. We also know the demand for time preference is not unlimited because ultimately have to consume to make good of the money. Therefore, with greater population, comes with greater demand for money, but also comes with greater demands for owning/consuming goods. So that is why price levels will not absolutely decline over time because money supply is fixed. In fact, history proves this point -- look at the USA data in pre-federal reserve era.