ratelimitsteve

in fairness: the people we elected lie a lot and one of them has built a personal army that he uses to fill the concentration camps you allude to.

piracy is a lot less charming than i imagined it to be. they weren't even singing...

i suspect that, much like the rest of the world, HN has had a sharp increase in people who "don't do politics"

we've reached the "yes, we're cheating, do something about it" stage of corruption

I was about to say something similar: OP talks about how in office days support their routine but adding the office to my day would do more to disrupt a routine than solidify it. As of right now my workdays, despite being WFH, are shockingly rigid in their form. Wake up, coffee, weightlifting and a podcast, start work, coffee break around 1030, lunch at noon with wifey, back to work until the afternoon doldrums set it, then exercise bike to try to force some oxygen up above my shoulders, then finish out the day, then dinner. Adding everything that an in-office day entails would mean developing two routines, one for office days and one for wfh days, and also that the number of ways that my routine could be disrupted on office days going up significantly. I'm not here to prescribe my way of life for everyone, I'm actually quite strange, but I do think that it's important to point out that there are ways to get the stability that people thrive on in WFH situations or in the office.

I very much like the idea that tolerating discomfort and inconvenience is something we have to actively train ourselves to do.

"We'd been floating on inner tubes on the river for 8 hours, drinking beer, and I realized that not once had any of my friends gotten out of the river to pee."

---ron white, upon experiencing a flash of enlightenment. quote from memory.

the rising tide that's supposed to lift all boats? also piss.

it really does trickle up, and the greater percentage of their income the beneficiaries spend on consumables the greater the upward benefits.

this. the problem with HitL is that there are so many decisions to make that decision fatigue is inevitable. Beyond a certain number of approvals most people are going to switch to an approval process that goes from "carefully consider the need and risk of each command" to "approve unless there's a blatant sudo rm -rf / because the last several hundred times i approved without reading it was fine"

> > not one dependent on "costly subsidies".

> While paying out 1.2 billion dollars.

for nothing. to literally replace some energy with no energy.

so as my energy bill is going up 50% we're giving people my tax dollars in exchange for them not making more energy to ease demand?

winning winning winning winning winning winning winning winning

one of my favorite youtubers but I feel like if you're linking directly to a reading list the title of your post should reflect that

I can go out today and pay $50 for a thick cut ribeye at Ruth's Chris that has been visually inspected for marbling then hard seared in a special high temp over to temp by someone who knows wtf they're doing. I can also go to Denny's and pay $20 for a t-bone cooked to within shouting distance of what I asked for on the same griddle they use for the pancakes that doesn't get the sear I'm looking for.

Point being, you're absolutely right that the goal for a company selling a product is to be barely satisfactory but they don't actually get to decide what's satisfactory.

We used to say computers can't make decisions because they can't meaningfully be held responsible for those decisions. Now the vibe seems to be that computers should make decisions because instead of anyone being held responsible we can just say "the computer made a mistake and it is very sorry" and effectively shield anyone from being responsible. But the thing is, machines don't do stuff. Not from a responsibility standpoint. My car doesn't drive, I do. It may provide the means, but I decide where we're going and how we're going there. Even with the active cruise on, the car didn't speed, I did. The car may have hit the wall, but I caused the accident. the car ran that person over, but I killed someone, not the car. The machine did what someone told it to do. If someone told it to do a bad thing, or someone did a bad job telling it not to a bad thing, that person is responsible.

When people started using Grok to make CSAM the platform's response was to paywall image generation. If we don't start making the driver responsible for what the car does, the coder responsible for what the code does, the CEO responsible for what the company does, they will continue to exploit people in increasingly horiffic ways.

I recently bought far cry 3 on steam and spent 20 minutes post-install trying to log into my ubisoft account between forgetting an old password, 2fa across multiple devices and a badly broken captcha system.

stockholders? no. stakeholders? absolutely.

engaging with the identity of the arguer rather than the argument. 5 yard penalty, loss of down.

>I mean, instead of investing so much effort to get glutamate into your food, why not use MSG directly?

Because the various uammi sources also add other flavors. I like being able to choose between soy sauce, fish sauce, worcestershire sauce, soy bean paste, mushroom powder, anchovies, chicken powder, yeast extract, and, yes, msg (with 2% i&g) because each of them affects the recipe i'm working with differently. Is your diet nothing but chicken breast, raw flour and shortening because they're the simplest sources of protein, carbs and fat?

this is a great metaphor precisely because (outside those with paradoxical stimulant response) everyone thinks they're more productive on amphetamines and there's some naive evidence to that effect. the number of things you've actually done is significantly higher. the change in value created, as measured by the decrease in distance between where you are and the the goal you're shooting for, is unpredictable at best and slowly degrades as reliance increases.

AI is like having a junior dev with an adderall addiction and an encyclopedic knowledge of coding syntax at your beck and call.

tbf rephrasing the output in my own words has become the best and most important tool in ensuring quality from AI. Whether it's an answer to a question or an implementation of some ACs that I copypasta'd in, the best sanity check is understanding and the best demonstration of understanding is the ability to redo.

the article talks about AI books winning awards and AI books on bestseller charts, but can any one of us think of a book they genuinely enjoyed that was written by an AI? this feels less like proof that AI books are good and more like proof that awards, rankings and other accolades are rife with abuse. it's a known issue across almost all entertainment media: you start by trying to find the best media to consume but the process is so subjective and gameable that it ends up being a way to pick something arbitrarily and then declare it to be the best.

anyone in the thread old enough to remember when we trusted the tobacco industry to run its own studies on the safety of tobacco which found that tobacco was definitely safe, then later found that no one knows whether tobacco is safe or not so we can't regulate it until we're sure, then eventually found that the whole time everyone knew it was dangerous?

the crypto hater mantra from day one was "this is just for drugs, bribery and money laundering". the only word I object to in that statement is "just".

like so many corrupt organizations lately, FIFA has been getting away with it for a long time and they overplayed their hand. this was a long time coming and i'm really glad to see it.

them is nasdaq and we is us. you know this, i can tell because you said it right after you asked me.

we watched them change the rules in the US to force indexers to provide exit liquidity for the spacex IPO blunder via your dad's 401k. capturing the regulators is just part of what finance does.

it does. because insurance is a bet. but it also has legislation and organized investigators behind it to drive up the risk of committing fraud (and, therefore, the necessary reward to justify it) whereas these bets-masquerading-as-financial-instruments don't. take the example from the OP: we have laws about falsifying votes and other obvious things like that, but you can bet on what time the last votes are accepted, what time the last votes are counted, which org will publish results first, will an org publish incorrect results, a lot of things that can potentially be manipulated without violating a law but would still weaken trust in our elections at a time when there is a decade long concerted effort to convince people that elections are being gamed and don't work.

>Alcohol is still lobbying hard to prevent recreational weed.

It's wild how using the drug I make is freedom and using the drug someone else makes is slavery

unfortunately the dominant ideology right now states that the ability to do catastrophic harm to both yourself and society in general is fundamental to the nature of freedom, and is therefore paramount.