mtsr

It’s hard to extract the huge amounts of energy we get from fossil fuels from these sources without having a cheap energy source available to get you started.

It’s why opinionated tools like rustfmt are so good. They set and enforce a standard which is good enough that even perfectionists don’t feel like arguing them ad nauseam.

Materials yes, but easily accessible sources of large amounts of energy are mostly gone.

Banning those drivers does make sense, though. Repeat offenders (speeding, dangerous driving, etc) should just have their license revoked, right?

An anti-competitive Microsoft conglomerate to compete with PS# is hardly going to better for consumers than a Nintendo-Sony duopoly.

I’d rather we don’t allow bad M&As, even for good reasons.

Diablo, I guess.

It’s got quite clear rogue influences.

You can just add the launcher as a non-steam game to make it a bit easier.

Not all games from other platforms work out of the box, even if the steam version does. Although my main issue there is with epic that doesn’t provide Linux versions even for games that have them. But then again the launcher is also a windows executable.

I’ve had a good experience with an anti-glare screen protector so far. And there’s also the possibility of swapping the screen later, as it’s only something like $100. Although changing the screen is a bit of work, I think.

The 512GB comes with a “micro-etched” screen for glare reduction. It should definitely not be a regular glossy screen.

Note that there’s something like 30x difference between SD and NVME performance. Not an issue for smaller games, but definitely something to keep in mind for games that stream data. On the other hand you’re likely not using the largest textures and models games come with anyway.

Agreed. The number of people affected is a big difference. But I think the comparison does make clear that isn’t necessarily a principled reason not to accept a few failures as part of otherwise useful regulation.

I’ll try to explain:

Clearly there are serious scenarios outside M&A where we accept terrible failures due to regulations. Why not accept some in M&A as well?

Except a lot of the formers ways of doing things / getting things have been pushed out of the market with all the capital influx. So there aren’t any small stores anymore, small restaurants don’t do delivery anymore, etc etc.

The obvious one is taking regular breaks from the screen. Focus on things at least 10-30 meters away, so your eyes can relax.

Also, with a good lens setup or with direct projection, VR/AR headsets could theoretically set the focus distance at any distance or even dynamically change it. This would also solve the vergence-accommodation conflict with current headsets.

That's at least definitely not the case in NL. There's been quite vocal criticisms about the kings choice to go on holiday during the pandemic, about subsidies for royal estates that are closed to the public, etc.

There's also a sentiment among even people in the Netherlands who might otherwise be republicans, that the current situation might actually be the lesser evil, compared to an elected head of state. Especially with populism on the rise, etc.

Or, you know, not dump millions of liters of waste water with all kinds of chemicals in the rivers at all.

Mixed UIs could probably work well here. Using a canvas and specific gpu rendering just for the part requiring high throughput makes sense.

This sounds like a compelling argument to me.

So what could actually be done about the fear porn? To what extent are people aware of the effects of fear-mongering / click-bait media able to make other choices if offered alternatives? Because surely people will actually feel better if they do.

Would neutral-to-hopeful media stories be able to reach enough people? If we let go of the goal of maximizing profits, would it be possible to make such an effort self-sustaining? Would it perhaps require volunteers who want to make a positive impact?

Finally, what is needed to start doing this and reaching people with it, right now?

Being caught lying about something like that could end up giving long lasting problems.

I’d be much more inclined to find a friendly company for the first post-burnout job and then hop from there in a year or two/three.

Might turn out that for rules based systems such as prescriptive grammars (for grammatically correct language rather than natural spoken) there is still use for a system that explicitly represents those rules.

Then again, we are a big old bulb of wetware and we can generally learn to apply grammar rules correctly most of the time (when explicitly thinking about them, anyway).

Maybe what we need is some kind of meta cognition: being able to apply and evaluate rules that the current LLMs can already correctly reproduce.

That's exactly the feeling I wanted to provoke with my comment.

Please know that I'm actually not proposing to go through with that. But I'm fairly sure literally anyone with enough programming skills to call the Bing API and extract and run the resulting code could do it.

So I'm not nihilistic in the way you described, but I am pessimistic that somebody else is willing to go through with something like it.

Edit: The whole problem with the "AI in a box" argument from the very beginning has always been actually keeping the box closed. I'm fairly sure that just like Pandoras, boxes like these will inevitably be opened by someone (well-meaning, or otherwise).

I know what an LLM is, thank you.

Writing an external program that interacts with Bing and gives it the opportunity to execute arbitrary code would be simple enough.

The open question in my comment is how to ensure it can learn from the results.

On the other hand it might have seemed fool-proof, except the universe had already come up with better fools.

It would be a fun exercise to ask it to help write an extension program that lets it run arbitrary code. I don’t think it’d require input from MS at all.

The thing I’m not clear on is how one could ensure any new information makes it into Bings training data ASAP.

NB: I’m not saying this is a good idea or to go do it. But I don’t think it would be fairly easy and that as such we're sort of beyond the point of no return already.

Maybe they don’t want others to be able to launch successful products built on top. This would be one way to force people into negotiations with MS.

Or the $28 is their lossleader and the $200 closer to their desired margin.

There’s a big difference here between people who can afford to replace the phone and those who can’t. And the way they’re marketed makes it really hard for some folks to buy anything but the latest and greatest, anyway.

They could, but they would have to either render the whole scope again or somehow apply the change to a copy of the scopes HTML and then set that. Neither seems ideal, but that may be a reasonable, if complex, optimization.

That's what responsible disclosure is for. Having a set deadline before an issue becomes public at least puts some pressure on the company to fix it. Not out of spite, or anything, but because it's the only way to protect the users, instead of just the owners.