skummetmaelk

Love the bandwagon takes. It's so obvious that you are personally against this and will latch onto any argument against EVs. No way you gave a shit about "denying personal vehicles to the poor" until you heard that sound bite as an argument against EVs.

Just makes it look like people jump on the virtue signalling bandwagon when they espouse opinions that aren't broadly consistent with their actions. Like eating beef several times a week, but feeling compelled to bring up the killing of pilot whales in amounts that are not at all concerning from a species conservation point of view.

That's a lot of emotional words without a single bit of context from the actual article. Your comment is better suited to FOX news' website.

The fact that you can unironically put the "only" modifier on a training time of 2.8 million GPU hours is nuts.

This is incorrect. They will quite often claim that it is possible to do without breaking encryption, as required for banking and such. They do believe it is possible to have a backdoor that will _only_ be accessible to the government. Completely ignorant of how quickly that backdoor will be found by hostile state actors.

A speech he very well may have watched live.

This is such a hilariously bad take given how much advertising is targeted towards "the poor" to extract what little they have.

Gambling ads, exploitative financial services, unhealthy "cheap" foods etc.

Also, why don't we just support the poor directly instead of requiring the construction of a consumer sentiment shaping global surveillance network?

That doesn't seem like holding two opposing thoughts. Why is balancing contradictory actions to optimize an outcome different to weighing pros and cons?

Which thing can you do that does not serve the purpose of generating desirable brain activity?

Classic failure to establish a (close to) pareto optimal regulatory structure to avoid ending up in the self-organizing Nash equillibrium which is worse for everyone.

The Price of Anarchy strikes again.

Pretty wild to love someone who does what they believe in regardless of how insane it is.

Which other useful things can they do? Spend their lives building advertising services or playing zero-sum games in financial markets?

Even if it was retroactive, which it is not, being punished for premeditated tax avoidance can hardly be called unpredictable.

The central difference of opinion is of course whether outright gaming the system is acceptable regardless of the written rules being followed to the letter.

There's not much uncertainty for business really. If you're pulling the moves that Apple and other companies pull to "optimize tax", then you are with 100% certainty trying to game the system and violating the spirit of the law.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A big reason for the Dutch and Nordic populations being better at English than the Germans, Italians, and Spaniards, is that they were simply forced to consume media in English. They had no other option. Turns out to be an advantage.

Localization and dubbing is a sad endeavour. By trying to accomodate everyone's individual preference for information transmission we accomplish nothing more than reducing our ability to understand each other in the long run.

Having a Babelfish is all well and good. Until it stops working, and you realise no one can understand each other any more.

Ironically localization is often pushed by well meaning Americans who only speak one language. "Oh, you're in a French speaking region. You MUST want French language. Let me force it down your throat while I prance around virtue signalling about how inclusive we are"

You expect the person whom you just called an arrogant narcissist to agree with you? Good luck with that.

The terms used to describe the modern technology are derived from early neuroscience going back to the late 19th century. Our understanding of how biological neural networks operate lead to this conclusion. Not the other way around.

I think it is interesting that you are imposing a value judgment on the humanist spiritual belief being better than the "reductionist" one through your adjective usage. It is perfectly possible to live well and enjoy life knowing that you are fundamentally not different than any other object in nature. No higher divinity required.

What makes you believe it is wrong? Can you construct an argument which does not require the existence of a supernatural "divine"?

If you presuppose such things exist, of course we reach different conclusions.

Do you feel attacked? Nobody is above anyone. Seems like that's your defensiveness reading something between the lines which isn't implied.

Humans are very good at pretending we are more than just biological machines acting according to genetically imposed network structure refined by lifetime history of training inputs.

Works as long as you don't think too deeply about why exactly you're doing that.

Cold is preferable to scorching heat. There's a hard limit to how many layers you can remove, not how many you can wear.

Take what you can, give nothing back. Apparently.

What was inconceivable yesterday will be mundane tomorrow.

Completely true. However, Equifax was probably hard to wrap your head around. Whereas 23andme might seem a lot more personal and private to the average person. Of course, nothing is likely to come of this regardless.

I can think of an easy model. Disallow collection of personal information. Pull the rug out from under "services" which are really just data collection fronts turning a profit from selling your data instead of the primary service/good for money transaction.

23andMe could still have operated legally under this scheme. They could have done the analysis and sent you a printed sheet. But no, they had to store everything to be able to double dip by selling the data to pharma companies and whoever else would pay for it.

If you can't turn a profit without underhandedly selling your users' data. You deserve to fail.

This disaster is the perfect counter-argument to those always saying "why do you care so much about privacy. It doesn't affect you when I share things. You can just choose not to do it", except no, I can't choose when we're relatives and you chose to share our genome.

It is so obvious that your relatives sharing their genomic data with 23andMe reveals a lot of information about you. We can only hope people will realize that this also holds true for collecting behavioural data on other people sharing the same background as you.