tticvs

Most self-employed people in Germany operate as "Kleinunternehmer" and therefore lack the liability protections provided by the LLC equivalent discussed in the article. It's apples to oranges.

That's not too far off from the average EFFR for that time period.

No it is not "super accurate" it's a dramatic fictionalization designed to get you emotionally hooked into the book and convey the author's message.

It's indistinguishable from propaganda.

KSR is a good prose writer but I found The Ministry of the Future to be full of extremely unconvincing scenarios and I don't think you should let it inform your worldview. It's just a story written by someone who does not really know what they're talking about.

Or: they have correctly identified that environmental harms from a small amount of fissile material in the ocean are so negligible it rounds to zero.

Compared to the very real harms caused by oil leaking from existing cargo ships this would be a massive upgrade.

Quite curious what research chemicals you've used against chronic fatigue (I thankfully don't have it or need medication)

Did you have any recourse against Google Cloud? Did you ever find out why they did that?

By "worst areas" I mean "areas badly affected by this problem" which is a decent % of the city.

It's obviously biased because he goes to the worst areas and he only interviews "interesting" people.

But it's pretty obvious he's not cherrypicking from weeks of footage across the whole city. It's really very bad in certain areas.

Self-reflection test failed

"Hey kids, get ready to die because our society decided war is bad m'kay and now we don't have the ability to defend ourselves."

I've been using this as a daily driver on iOS for about a month now and it's been great. A few random teething issues but no crashes or real bugs. Supports extensions well.

Alternatively: new way to defend people.

> The first sentence is as reductive, and by extension the third as false, as saying that a computer can only do logical comparisons on 1s and 0s.

Please, provide any example to prove me wrong.

But LLMs only have the capability to statistically associate strings of words. That's all they are. There is no other capability possible there.

And you admit that they cannot be expected to keep secrets. So what is the point of trying to have a "security" team hammer secret keeping into them? It doesn't make sense.

I bring up chat control since I've noticed most "AI Safety" advocates are also vehemently opposed to government censorship of other communication technology. Which is fundamentally incoherent.

Hence training an LLM to keep secrets (your apparent practical definition of safety) is as much of an existential risk as not doing it at all?

Your position makes no sense, and your arguments are all based on basically false data.

Do you not see the massive contradiction in your view that "we should build a world where secrecy doesn't matter" and "we need to make sure that LLMs keep secrets?"

This is completely untrue re: software. All but the most rudimentary software written by chatgpt is riddled with bugs and inconsistencies so it's mostly useless to someone who doesn't know what they're doing to verify it is correct.

Same principle applies to "bioweapon synthesis" introducing LLMs actually makes it _more_ safe since it is will hallucinate things not in its training data. And a motivated amateur won't know it's wrong.

we are not talking about spellbooks sitting around that you can read and destroy the world.

Acquiring the basic information is literally the easiest part of deploying any weapon.

If anything LLMs make it more safe since they're liable to hallucinate things that aren't in the training set.

You are spreading dangerous misinformation about LLMs. They cannot reliably generalize outside of their training data ergo if they are able to give detailed enough information to bootstrap a bioweapons this information is already publicly available.

Your second point boils down to "this makes fraud easier" which is true of all previous advances in communication technology, let me ask what is your opinion of EU Chat Control?

Your comment implies that having homeless fentanyl and meth addicts does not cause actual harm to the rest of society, only the perception of harm. This is demonstrably false.

You also suggest they should be "given more support" what to do if this does not work, and does not keep the rest of society safe?

Just like weavers, farmhands, humans calculators, stenographers, scribes, etc before them.

Almost as if their real goal isn't to lower emissions...

This is a pretty interesting article but the conclusion is literally insane:

> For all these reasons, rather than keeping weapons out of the sustainability discussion – they should be our focus. If we cannot imagine low-tech warfare, we cannot imagine a low-tech, sustainable, and fair society. Switching to low-tech weapons sounds unrealistic because it would require global cooperation, but the same holds for lowering the emissions from fossil fuels. Switching to low-tech weapons sounds unrealistic because it involves “uninventing” things, but this also applies to many other problematic everyday products.

> Indeed, military technology is one of the few domains in which we have collectively decided not to use certain technologies. Humanity has banned many types of weapons in warfare, such as chemical and biological weapons, blinding laser weapons, and poisoned bullets. Meanwhile, no country has succeeded in outlawing SUVs, although their danger to other road users and the environment is well-known. As weird as it sounds, military technology leads by example

Oh this is great thanks. I've been annoyed by symantec for a long time.

This logic doesn't hold in the case where you would not pay anything for the product.

For example bypassing a NYT paywall with archive.is doesn't deprive the NYT of any income since I would never subscribe to their paper or pay them any money.

> Techno-capitalism creates more and worse problems than it solves

Citation needed

Under this legal argument wouldn't youtube just need to add the equivalent of a cookie popup to gain consent?

Or switch to a serverside approach?

Adopting Christianity as the official company religion would also "appease someone". Why would that be so hard for you? It's just words after all.

If you try to bend over backwards to appease the whims of every group of people you'll never accomplish anything. A good engineer realizes this, and prioritizes accordingly. It's a core competency of the job.

Not pushing back on master -> main is a sign that an engineer will not make good decisions on the job.

Also this has nothing to do with "intolerance" and your framing of it this way is a classic manipulation tactic: "You wouldn't want to be intolerant would you?"