manoDev

No? What’s the Chinese Elon Musk/DOGE fiasco equivalent?

> Our internal intuition about right and wrong seems to leave us at an early age.

I think it’s the opposite - Kant did too.

But modern way of life don’t leave time and space for people to think about right and wrong. One really has to elevate his spirit to begin pondering about that, most people are living for the next paycheck.

Doesn’t read like a defense of Gawker to me, rather a demonstration of power. Thiel didn’t sue the company directly over what got published about him, but instead funded a different lawsuit with the intent of destroying the company.

> So - as long as they are in their 'CEO box' - that's fine - they should not be famous, not be giving lectures, influencing politics so much. They can make 'whatever' and want 'more equity'.

Like China.

Many small companies focusing on their niches is the entire reason VC works — risk spread across the portfolio. It’s pretty obvious.

The book indoctrinates founders to act aligned with VCs best interests, not necessarily the company/employees/customers ones.

> These politics do not stay inside the United States. In Brazil in 2022 and 2023, Musk’s platform X amplified supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro before and after an election Bolsonaro lost. When the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered X to block accounts that were inciting violence and spreading disinformation, Musk refused.

> In India, Meta’s platforms have amplifyied Hindu nationalist content that incites violence against Muslim communities, while consistently applying content moderation more aggressively to criticism of the governing BJP party than to nationalist propaganda.

If you think this type of interference is just “eccentric billionaires’ opinions about freedom of speech”… it isn’t.

This is the exact modus operandi of the cold war era of causing turmoil on countries at the periphery of capitalism, only now executed by a state captured by techno plutocrats and amplified by the use of social media.

Nations that fall for the freedom of speech rhetoric (instead of state censorship like China) will get ripped apart from the inside, stripped of its resources and not have a seat at the negotiating table.

Now? Intelligence agencies have been doing this for decades. There’s a reason social media and the web had some much money and support behind its adoption, and why the US in particular forces its view of free speech worldwide, it’s a way to weaponize opinion.

I have almost certainty by now that half of the web is just bots steering the narrative of humans, because I’ve never seen so much non sense being normalized in my life. Dish soap drinking level I mean.

I wonder if there’s any study linking C-section birth, autism and microbiota? Or newborns that have to stay in incubators?

I understand a newborn gets its microbiota naturally by contact with the mom in the first days, maybe all the sterile environment involved in surgery changes that.

Is symbol manipulation reasoning? If so, machines have always been capable of reasoning, we just instructed them with a language other than English.

It’s easy to see the conceptual integrity in good software, architecture, design and movies — or the lack of this quality in the bad ones.

Vibe coded software is the Marvel green screen movie equivalent.

I will make a prediction here that Dawkins will believe AI is conscious since it pushes forward his arguments for atheism. There’s no difference between soulless humans and conscious machines.

There’s a trap though: since we invented AI, and if AI is conscious, would we be their gods? I wonder what Dawkins thinks about that.

Ferrari has recently announced the interior design for a new model, designed by Jony Ive.

The bad part of LLM is it got trained on bad examples because us humans also don't know WTF we're doing.

AFAIK, the primary reason Apple and others for avoiding removable batteries was the reputational risk and fire hazard of having customers put fake or damaged batteries, because that was long before they started marketing an IP rating.

And by the way, the "water proofing" is only 30 minutes with pressure equivalent to 6 meters deep, tested with water nozzles. That's not a lot. Other gadgets that employ gaskets or positive pressure achieve more. I'm sure they can design for the same rating without hurting easier battery replacement ability with the right incentives.

Lots of advantages, but one major downside: you can't pop the empty battery, put a new one and keep working.

There's a reason professional devices (e.g. cameras) still have replaceable batteries.

> I don’t want to pay the extra penalties of reduced structural rigidity and water tightness for a battery

This is a BS excuse. Lots and lots of gadgets with removable batteries and waterproof design as evidence.

Yeah, and it's BS because in real usage iPhone batteries almost never reach this lifespan. Apple's lobby made this law ineffective, I hope customers start suing.

Propaganda.

Fight? This year, the Chinese Geely turned the largest shareholder of Daimler (MB). They own Volvo as well.

For prior art on how to define alert conditions, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_rules

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Electric_rules

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgard_rules

I feel CLISP is pragmatic (it’s both low level and high level, multi purpose, has a formal specification, is a standard), but the world just changed too much around it.

Both can be true.

That’s why we say “let me sleep on it”.

Nobody will explain you like this, but the main point was being able to satisfy the compiler without introducing an escape hatch into the language.

Haskell is based on Miranda, and Miranda is based on Hope. Purely functional languages were really purely functional, academic experiments with no way to express side effects, so no way to express practical programs.

Philip Wadler took the monad (the name that already existed in category theory), and showed how computations could be expressed in Haskell with the “do notation” as an example. That made Haskell practical without breaking the “beauty” of the language, by having to introduce new special syntax or something outside the type checker capacity.

So, I don’t think there’s a motivation besides being an exercise in expressivity within the limitations of pure functional programming. Similar ideas in describing computation as lazy executed instructions already existed elsewhere, like the interpreter pattern.

Humanity's doom would be failing to recognize how amazing advancements in one area don't necessarily translate to another – not the opposite.

That's why philosophy (in the original sense of "striving for wisdom") is important. We're thinking animals after all, and can be more than dumb consumers, victims of our instincts.

The risk is the next generation, who will not have lived in a pre-AI world, won't know the difference to compare.

"Social media should bring people together instead of being used to set them apart."

"Economy should improve allocation of resources universally, instead of allowing a handful to hold what many are lacking."

And so on...

Society has advanced in technology but didn't progress the same way in philosophy.