maerF0x0

In my observations it appears there are 3 kinds of truck drivers.

1. People who need to haul stuff in the bed

2. People who need to tow stuff behind them

3. People who buy them for some form of self expression.

Electrics are probably fine for people in 1 & 3. But for 2 I have yet to find one that both tows and gets range.

There are cheaper, more reliable, and easily repaired generators though.

Lots of them were using Jordan Peterson's voice for a while

It's your money. Not wrong.

There's 2 meanings of the word. Incorrect, or immoral. I'd assume you'd know on the former, on the latter I cannot imagine a moral framework that says giving to Charity instead of unvetted individuals is "immoral".

And, ironically, that means self generation of power (solar, maybe wind if you have lots of land) becomes even more attractive. Even if it's only a portion of your usage.

It's a model that helps you make present tense valuations of potential futures.

No one said it literally is a projectile. It's an analogy and model. The similarities are in the present tense maths. It's presumed and beyond having to be stated that businesses exist in a complex set of variables all of which could change and might not be as predictable as the valuation maths.

You're not wrong, you're just not adding anything to the conversation that any but the most uneducated do not already know and acknowledge.

My guess is they already heard from big investors they weren't going to participate unless they had the numbers.

Mathematically they can work very similarly though because you have a revenue growth rate, and margin. The question is can that revenue/margin reach break even before you run out of runway (the expected sum of all rounds of investing) .

The main difference I would concede is that gravity, mass, forces, awind drag etc are much easier to model.

It seems we've setup the conditions where someone who toxically pushes people to their limits is seen as a hero, and the people who do the actual work are seen as lesser than.

It takes exactly 0 talent to sit in a room and tell someone their worldclass effort is "not good enough". Just as it takes 0 ingenuity to say "I want a manned return mission to mars by 2030"... Just because the executive says it doesn't mean they're contributing anything of worth to the outcome.

I never took it to mean "I" the first person singular, but I-nternet ? I could totally be wrong though. It also could have been both.

a 51% agreement could fork/reverse this.

I've never understood this. SV is full of the corpses of "First mover" advantage. Meanwhile many great companies were third or later to the scene.

I blame the steve jobs cult

What will we do with the new materials in 2027 then? Will you just dismiss them?

Biblically though the only person who can hold that title is Jesus. (ie who perfect? Jesus... who is good? only god ... )

If you just meant very high percentile, then yes I agree. :)

Correct.

I'm saying When we remove their phone, they do not have any sense of loss (unhappiness). If that's true then the simpler system of no phone is preferable to the complexity of having one.

If the phone was adding something (something unique/irreplaceable) then we'd expect to see some negative outcome once it's removed.

I actually read it as "They're no more unhappy without than with them" . Kinda occam's razor of if they're not unhappier without their phone, then there's no harm taking it from them.

> why would they hang out with anyone

Sex. Touch. The novelty of knowing it's not AI. To feel the novelty of pain instead of pleasure, etc. Hedonic adaptation will eventually saturate and the only direction of novelty will be less not more. I see it like someone doing Cocaine or Heroin. Eventually you cannot take more. You just die/destruct.

Alan Watts hinted at the novelty portion of ^^:

So then, let’s suppose that you were able every night to dream any dream you wanted to dream, and that you could, for example, have the power within one night to dream 75 years of time, or any length of time you wanted to have.

And you would, naturally, as you began on this adventure of dreams, you would fulfill all your wishes. You would have every kind of pleasure you could conceive. And after several nights of 75 years of total pleasure each you would say “Well that was pretty great. But now let’s have a surprise, let’s have a dream which isn’t under control, where something is gonna happen to me that I don’t know what it's gonna be."

And you would dig that and would come out of that and you would say “Wow that was a close shave, wasn’t it?”. Then you would get more and more adventurous and you would make further- and further-out gambles what you would dream. And finally, you would dream where you are now. You would dream the dream of living the life that you are actually living today.

He was a Christian minister though, and many of us value him not just for his contributions to civil rights, but to the conversation of how God wants us to treat one another.

What do you mean?

As much as I actually really love MLK's speeches, sermons, movement. I am afraid there appears to be some unfortunate truths about the man. None are perfect except God. That doesn't make the positives he did any less great, it just reminds us of the nature of humanity.

And that's not to detract from how gross it is that government abused it's power to attempt to get someone to commit suicide. Reminds me of Aaron Swartz case too.

the analogy is falling apart.

I meant Datacenter real estate, construction companies, building materials. :)

> but it hinges all on this November

A slight challenge here. November is a sizable opportunity to move towards that aim. Every day after is another opportunity to live it out in your life, community, neighborhood, finances, religion, and family...

And yet we are so quick to dismiss their own livd experience and/or not believe them. Frankly "this happens almost never, but it happened once to me" is far more real to pretty much every human on this planet. I was routinely beat up by a certain racial group of people growing up. I still cannot feel threatened by their presence, from what I know of the brain it's literally encoded in my body.

sell shovels

No, because he has constitutional rights regardless of my take on them.

I'd say so long as engineers make greater than average we by definition do not have enough, no?

Just turn up the temperature when it's time for police raises or retirements

From a higher level view, and not just about the article I note that:

- Automation seems to make specific individuals work more, the leverage makes the individual more valuable in the short run (eg if I can produce 10x the engineering, for a little while I'm 10x more valuable, I dont mean LoC but engineering value). But in the long run its deflationary on the value of what I do, I might have to work harder just to stay in place.

- Automation/industrialization spins the hedonic treadmill. Economists ~100 years ago thought we'd all work like 5 hours a week or something because, for example, 95% of the farmers would be replaced with machines etc. However what they didn't/couldnt account for was us increasing our consumption as fast as the productivity improvements. Before today I had use for approximately 1 GPU (gaming), now I'm probably using dozens or hundreds. George Monboit also notes this with "green" technologies, that we end up consuming more such that we approximately end up with the same pollution (co2, plastic, whatever).

- Software has long been a negotiation between Manager/Executive class and the maker class about what an appropriate amount of software per week/40 hours was. They think because claude writes code 95% faster we should ship 20x the software. But they miss that coding was only 10-25% of the job. (numbers made up to illustrate idea, someone chime in with the data please!)

Some proportion of them will be back if we get a 50% pull back.