lp4vn

It's a continous, demoralizing nightmare called scrum in an administration oriented company.

This kind of age restriction is indeed pretty stupid, Andrew Wiles was too old for the Fields medal for example.

That shows the dominance of the financial market and the economic power over the structures of society. We find completely normal hundreds of billions be redirected to the owners of the capital but we would find an anomaly to think of a technological project that could bring real progress and costed that much.

Whatever PPP-adjusted total GDP might indicate, I think the main idea is to create a graphic where China is ahead of the USA economically.

>Beef cattle use nearly 60% of the world’s agricultural land but account for less than 2% of global calories and 5% of global protein consumed.

Sure... We're going to create 5 more planets to provide all the pasture needed to feed the world with your food of the future.

>Grass fed beef does not add to Climate change, as all bio-emissions are bound in a circle. Unlike typical mass production which is importing feed from far abroad, often burning a good chunk of rainforest in the process on doing so.

There are many studies that show that beef, grass fed or not, add to Climate change.

The grass fed meme crowd thinks they are saving the rainforest by not eating beef fed with soy from monocultures in Latin America but conveniently forget that in order to feed the whole world with grass fed animals you would need more land than the world can provide. Much of the amazon is being cut down to create pastures for cattle. It's a complete tragedy.

>Beef cattle use nearly 60% of the world’s agricultural land but account for less than 2% of global calories and 5% of global protein consumed.

https://grazingfacts.com/land-use

I think that patents should only be enforceable if there is a commercialy product or service using it in the interval of maybe 5 years since the patent was registered. People making money by buying patents and suing companies is downright evil.

Explain this story better, please.

Go is played in a a bigger board though and has this kind of recursive nature where a subset of a go game is also a go game while chess is more ad-hoc.

>I don't know about your example, animal carcasses vary a bunch and it would have to be great at not leaving any meat wasted.

Cutting meat in practice is an activity that's more complex than it looks and for sure carcasses vary a lot, but even taking in account all their variation they still follow a pattern. At some point I'm sure we'll have robotic AI arms that will be trainable just like chatGPT is, so after being trained by a profession with thousands and thousands of hours, the hypotetical intelligent robotic arm eventually learns to do the job just fine 99.99% of the time and that's enough.

I think that at some point AI will enter the domain of repetitive physical jobs, like for example an experienced butcher will train an AI arm that eventually will learn to slice meat correctly since that's an activity that normally works with a reasonably standardized product(the animal carcass).

Keeping that in mind, honestly for me it's hard not to be very skeptical that it would make any economic sense in the next many decades to have an expensive humanoid robot performing tasks with a very low aggregated value like moving boxes one by one. Just because it's a robot performing an economic activity it doesn't necessarily mean it will be productive or competitive.

>We are rapidly approaching an inflection point where the rules of capitalism don't work anymore. The road bifurcates there and I'm not sure that we are capable of getting the good ending.

What are you talking about exactly? Can you elaborate?

>According to our best current model, no, the laser beam will never stop passing by matter, of approximately the same average density as the matter we can see.

I didn't understand this part, why would the laser beam would never stop passing by matter? Because of the metric expansion of the universe? Isn't it reasonable to assume that there is a skirt of the universe where matter keeps expanding into nothingness?

As I understand it, before the big bang the whole observable universe was contained in a small sphere and then it started to expand metrically. Is this interpretation correct?

Another thing: suppose I point a laser beam to the space and by chance this laser beam never finds any kind of matter in its way, where is this laser going to? To an infinite void? Is it correct to say that stars radiate energy to the infinite then?

I used to live in a subtropical region when I was a child in the 90s and it's pretty remarkable how hot the winters are today over there. That experience alone taught me that no way the climate change is not real. It's a bit like with the economy, you feel something is pretty wrong, but a lot of people for one reason or another will deny and try to brush it off, then after many years you get to see articles about how tough times have been in the last X years.

Well... Nobody is expecting to find a civilization under the ocean of Europa. Microbial life is already alien life.

Once I read somewhere that people overestimate the impact of new technologies in the short term and underestimate it in the long term.

My interpretation is that right now we're on the top of AI euphoria wave. It was the same thing some time ago with crypto. We would hear a lot of theories about how a system based in objective microcontracts would make the subjective and inefficient governments of today obsolete.

We still don't know the true impact that the new LLM models will have over the economy, but what we know is that a lot of people is making a lot of money by being excessively optimistic with the prospects. Honestly I think that the practical impacts of LLMs won't be nowhere near to what the enthusiasts are preaching. In more 3-4 years the novelty will fade and then we will be ready to go to the next hype.

And the fentanyl epidemic is just a symptom, the underlying cause is something else. And of course it's much easier to talk about the chemical structure of molecules or about evil cartels than to face the real social problems that make people get addicted.

What I find it funny about this LLM euphoria is that people seem to have forgotten the theoretical limits of what turing machines can do.

Program equivalence, for instance, hits the wall of the halting problem. Yet somehow people think that it's just a matter of time before an AI that can solve the problem of giving you a mathematically equivalent code to an existing code.

Your commentary is pretty childish.

I pointed out a structural issue of the modern world and you came up with a pointless counterpoint about being born in an unfavourable condition in the past.

I guess I'm being trolled.

There is something very wrong with the current dynamic of the world. Work is deeply devalued while capital has been reaping all the benefits of the increased productivity: if you doubt me, ask anyone who has made any kind of investment if they are making more money from the investment or from their regular job.

This is creating a ridiculous wealth disparity and deincentivizing a whole generation to get good with a skillset. I already heard from a lot of young people that working is not worth it, hard to disagree with them when even a basic thing like a piece of land or a house looks out of reach for a regular person.

But as you put it unsustainable things are not sustainable, society will regress until the equilibrium is found again. But things didn't need to be like this.

I already replied to this guy. I honestly think his concept of convenience is overrated. I know a lot of people who would rather drink from glass than plastic. Surprisingly this convenience has never reached the beer industry and you can always have beer available in glass. I can never find milk in glass bottles though and I can't see why, I'm literally forced to use tetrapak due to the lack of options.

I think that in a lot of cases plastic is a poor container and that's why I asked the question, for me it's not obvious the convenience of the plastic nor why plastic is the only available packaging material for almost everything.

I think you can speak for yourself.

I prefer glass bottles to plastic ones and I always buy soda in glass bottles if they are available(and this means almost always since they are available in the supermarket close to my home).

I arrived to the conclusion that this "risk-aversion" in child rearing is basically the result of smaller families. This may sound callous but I think parents are much more OK with their oldest son/dqughter taking bigger risks if there are other 4 ones at home than if that's your only child and losing him/her is the end of your lineage. Not saying that more kids work as a genetic backup, but I think that for sure that creates a subconscious effect in the parents' risk assessment.

I read somewhere that propensity to war is proportional to the average age of a society. I think the same phenomenon applies to acceptance of risk in child behaviour but now related to fertility rate.

Very nice. I live alone and often I'm baffled by the sheer amount of garbage that my urban lifestyle generates. I was not alive in the 80's but I was told that people used to use more environment-friendly packaging like glass bottles. Sometimes I wonder why this massive change to everything-should-be-packed-in-plastic happened.

Modern capitalism supresses competition, that's what happens. What if McDonnell Douglas had never been merged? What if Embraer had been bought by Boeing?

That's the harm that monopolies do to society and yet somehow they have been even incentivized in recent times.

What about discouraging wealth inequality and the lack of social support for the population in general? This would be a horrifying interference of the state in the dynamic of society, right?

But somehow for some people the state legislating about the behaviour of the average Joe to make sure he continues to be a well behaved cog is absolutely appropriate.

If you have a project/company that's already running well and you fire almost everybody except a skeleton crew, you'd be amused but things don't crumble down instantly. Technical debt piles up and everything goes to maintenance mode, when you need the insight of the good people who left is when you realise that going to the previous state will cost you a lot more time and money than you might possibly predict.

>Makes me wonder how Boeing can avoid descending into bankruptcy at this point with multiple major projects having significant issues, recalls, and safety issues.

Boeing is a duopoly with Airbus and for putting in your hands in a brand new Airbus you will have to join the queue and wait five years. So they benefit from the lack of competition, if the merger with McDonnel had never happened, probably this situation would be different. But today's capitalism is all about consolidating and eliminating competition.

Embraer might try to venture in the wide body segment, but they don't seem willing to do that move.

One might have said the same thing about the millenials since the 00's and the 10's were known for being "culturally poor" in comparison to previous decades.

I think there is a huge economic and demographic phenomenon driving these trends. Young people today have less money and less economic perspective than the young people from previous generations in the same age bracket and this reflects in the art and everything else. The continuous deceleration of the econonomic growth in the last five decades together with unprecedent inequality brought the world to the sad times we're living in.

In the past also your parents were expected to die at 60 and something and pass their wealth to their children. The boomer generation broke this trend with force, they are living much more and don't seem slightly interested in ceasing any kind of power to the younger generations.