manlymuppet

What if we're all in Genie 10 right now?

Every time I see something about solar's expanding capacity, I imagine a Yeoman farmer in a cowboy hat with straw in his mouth talkin' about farming yer energy.

I mean this is good, because AI generated content is explicitly against the guidelines, however I can't help but think there is some utility to be had with AI and online encyclopedias, and we might be missing out on that.

Of course I'd love for this experiment to be done outside of the main site, and only integrated when it's mature, stable, and proven to be actually useful, but other than that implementation concern, I feel this is something that needs to be explored.

You are welcome. Though seeing your overwhelming openness and good nature in the rest of this thread, I now feel some regret in how I replied to you here.

I addressed but one of your points here and ignored essentially the rest of your reply. A rather myopic one sentence reply to a more nuanced comment.

Sorry to sink to the lowest common denominator, friend. Thank you for making me see this.

Of course you’re right. Food isn’t the whole picture, and no think tank is perfect.

We should evaluate research by the research itself, rather than by the author’s subjectivity credibility alone. The is the point I was trying to make by providing alternative research and adding a little bit of nuance to the reply, but perhaps I should’ve been more forthright in addressing my own bias as well.

The data by the Fed linked above is inflation adjusted.

This is research from a labor advocacy group, with the explicit aim of the organization to advocate for this sort of thing. This doesn't mean the research is is automatically invalid, but it is bias worth mentioning.

Looking at an article from the CATO institute, over the last 30 years wages have climbed 169 percent, while food prices 111 percent.

But an even better measure is PCE, or personal consumption index. Rather than CPI, or any other "household basics" measure, which subjectively categorize goods and then tracks those, PCE measures the total dollar amount spent by the entire U.S. consumer sector on goods and services. This is what is used by the FRED database referenced in the reply above.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-dire-pronouncements-abou...

Something like 80% of workers are full time.

The point about politicians is the one I think today most needs. Our public systems don't work when we inherently distrust them. This isn't reason alone to trust, but a bias towards distrust is a pernicious thing for society.

This might be terribly controversial, but I think that even today, even at the highest levels of power, evil is a rare exception, rather than the rule, and we oughta be aware of that.

I now realize this comment may read much more mean-spirted than I intended--not my intention!

This is a great and cool app. I am just joking. Sorry to be an ass.

The main demo video uses the Red Hot Chilli Peppers as an example. A singing app, for learning to sing, and Anthony Kiedis used as the model.

Red Hot Chilli Peppers. Anthony Kiedis.

It's like if you had let Shaquille O'Neal teach you how to shoot threes.

Presumably the agent isn't only reading, but changing the code to conform.

How useful would this be to simply feed to an LLM and say to follow strictly?

Is there any implementation proposal which exists that makes relative corners automatic?

If you want them now, you have to do sort of verbose and clunky calculations to get outer corner radius.

[Outer Radius = Inner Radius + Padding](https://www.reddit.com/r/Design/s/oal9fZclJS)

This seems like something standard enough to be a built-in feature.

    > Normally, America’s highest value exports are either oil, pharmaceuticals, or aircraft and their parts.  Not now.  Starting in October 2025, the value of gold exports has topped all other categories almost every month.

From what I’m reading, the article does rank exports by value.

Relative to quantity, the price of gold might have less to do with why it’s the top of the list, but gold being more valuable in general might still be the main reason it’s at the top.

For example:

June

Oil at $1 a barrel

Gold at $10 a ton

100 barrels of oil exported - $100

9 tons of gold exported - $90

By value, oil is the top export.

——-

July

Oil at $1 a barrel

Gold at $9 a ton

100 barrels of oil exported - $100

12 tons of gold exported - $108

By value, gold is now the top export.

——-

Even though the price of gold dropped—-the inverse of our current situation to illustrate an extreme—-the general higher price of gold is more relevant to the ranking than its quantity increase.

I was abundantly clear about this exact thing in my comment.

I even asked, explicitly, “what do the scientists know that I don’t?”

I asked despite the question sounding dumb, because that’s what you do when you genuinely want to know more!

How much of this is exports being ranked by value, and gold, even a little being worth a lot, quickly becomes the “top” export despite being relatively small in absolute quantity terms?

I see. So, instead of

"GLP-1s cause an improvement in cardiovascular health"

if you said

"GLP-1s cause an improvement in cardiovascular health more than as would be expected by equivalent weight loss"

would that be more specific? Is this right?

    > I mean SpaceX was literally caught buying Cybertrucks it's clear there's some corruption.

SpaceX doesn't exclusively fund itself through government money. They have plenty of private investors, and they used private money to buy those Cybertrucks. This purcahse is not the clear sign of corruption you present it to be; there is zero evidence that money from government contracts was used.

Government contracts are not grants. There are specific appropriations for where that money is allowed to be used.

And as for your point about the funds going to other ventures, sure I guess. You're free to think whatever you want about which private companies deserve funding, but it's not like it's unfair to anyone when two private agents get together and agree to do something. That is the case even if the private investor funds the private company to do something considered phony and pointless.

I mean sure sure, I get that, but take this article I found from a simple Google search.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/weight-loss-drug...

I get that science has to be thorough, but how is it at all worth writing about that losing weight makes your risk of heart attacks lower? That GLP-1s are involved suddenly makes this news?

Again, not trying to be snide. I'm on the side of science here, but there's gotta be something the scientists are looking at that I'm not.

I'm always confused with these type of posts because I feel the scientists must know something I don't. Why is it always does GLP-1 help with [general health thing]?

If I understand it correctly, GLP-1 drugs help people with weight loss. People are more healthy when they're not overweight, and GLP-1s help people get down to a healthier weight. So when we ask questions about do GLP-1s help this or that, isn't there a giant confounding variable here? That being overweight causes a litany of health issues has been common knowledge forever now. Thus, my (uninformed, intuitive) guess would just be that GLP-1s, which cause weight loss, also include the subsequent effects of healthy weight loss.

So why are we surprised then that people going from overweight to a healthy weight slows aging, or betters cardiovascular health as I've seen elsewhere? Aren't these already well-studied effects of healthy weight loss? Shouldn't these positive effects obviously just be attributed to weight loss, rather than the thing that causes the weight loss? And why are there articles about this stuff acting like this is unexpected?

I admit I'm a laymen and I hope don't sound too snide or critical here. I'm just kind of puzzled by this out of genuine curiosity.

Would you the same thing if it wasn't Elon Musk at the helm of this company? I'm not a big fan of him either, but I get the feeling some don't want to like this demo.

Also the public government funds being received are in the form of contracts. It's not like they can just use the money anywhere. Both Tesla and SpaceX are likely using private money (that is to say, funds not from the government) to fund this.

I have the opposite feeling about CoackroachDB. Great database, but man, what a terrible name.

The real Gilfoyle would self-host.

I love that this is a learning tool too.

People should appreciate Google more for how all of their models have:

- Natively multi-modality

- Enormous context windows

- Reliably cheap prices

It's like they don't release a model until it passes the above checklist.

Most providers have some mixture of these three occasionally, but with Google, every model is consistent. This kind of consistency is really nice to have.

If I'm reading this right, then at the moment, for certain tasks, this is the best model in the world.

A new company on the frontier. Not close, but actually on it. Wow this is big news.

OP mentioned that inflation is confusing because people often don't realize that inflation is relative to their wages. I'm not denying that.

My issue with your criticism specifically was that you called out the example. It's like if someone had issue with Hitler, but their criticisms only focused on Hitler's choice of clothing.

"Boo Hitler! Not because of his ideology though, but because the collars he wore were too tight!" This is ridiculous because even if your criticism is valid, you are just criticizing the wrong thing.

    > That's not how the economy works.

    > yeah but it's not a great example, because actually wages aren't going up.

    > my point is that's a bad example because we couldn't say that that's true given that the cost od living has been out-pacing wage inflation for a long time.

All of these quotes have you fixating on the numbers. If you take only one thing from this entire reply, let it be this: *the example works regardless of the numbers used*. My whole point is that whether wages rise with inflation or not, the example's (not any surrounding exchange, just the example) only purpose was to illustrate that wages are relative to inflation. It did that.

To take this even further, and make it so even a bird-brain like myself can't possibly misunderstand, let's look at my previous example with the Nazis. Does my analogy stop working if I switch "Hiter" with "Stalin", or him with "bin Laden"?

"Boo Stalin! Not because of the Great Purge, but because of his funny mustache!"

See how the point being made remains exactly the same, regardless of whom you use to illustrate it? Please, please, please try to understand this.

And as this has now become a stress test for how thoroughly I want to humiliate myself through meaningless argument, let me also briefly address your argument on the data.

    > as for how real wages have changed overtime, you should be aware that it isn't a straight-forward measurment, and that it is an area of active political contestation.

Of course it's politically contested, but that doesn't mean we're just nowhere; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have some statistics that can give us some good idea of wages relative to inflation, and the graphs I gave you were a very good start. Especially the one from FRED, where three different earnings metrics are supplied--at the very least this is an okay proxy for income.

    > there are ways you can slice it to make things look one way or another. 

Yes, there are different ways to interpret the data. This is why I said that the affordability problem is real.

But this is not the claim you made. Your claim was much stronger, and much less defensible. You said that wages outpacing cost of living/inflation is unrealistic, and critically, that inflation had outpaced wages for "a long time."

This is just false. Inflation generally outpacing wages for "a long time" is just not a conclusion you can make based on the data. We can have more nuanced conversation about this, but here specifically I think you're trying to take your broad, conclusive, and incorrect claim, and equivocate it into a smaller, more defensible, but different claim.

    > Intended audience: non-technical citizens of the web

Not everyone is a hacker privacy type, and passkeys are still considerably easier than TOTP codes.

This article goes down a slippery slope and comes to a conclusion I think is pretty unsubstantiated and dramatic. Passkeys are not a trap.

    > In fact there are many different things called “passkeys” and the FIDO Alliance has intentionally named all of them the same thing. I believe this was done in order to deliberately confuse users and encourage them not to look too closely at the fine text.

This is just completely unsubstantiated conspiracy.