verisimi

Why do you believe in it?

> it was just a variation in their judgement rather than a "we want to make money" type of scam.

Sure. I mean, dentists, unlike every other human, are not interested in making money, and would not abuse their position to give incorrect information that is in their benefit. /s

Can it really be acceptable that you are denied a living, for taking a genuine and reasonable moral position, because this is not acceptable to the government?

Coming to a country near you soon!

But, climate change!

Isn't stalking already illegal? Isn't this stalking? Or facilitating it, at least.

> Lobbying is how businesses talk to government. And I get that that sounds nasty—and sometimes it is nasty—-but it’s necessary.

Sure. Its a just a shame people don't get a chance to talk too. I don't want a de-anonymised internet, for example, even if most businesses and the governance system think this is a 'good'.

> I'm surprised that (particularly non-US) regulators are not investigating them yet.

Because corporate managed phones are required for all the id crap governance franchises intend to foist on people.

I get it - I'm just telling you what the cost in London is. Most people can't stick paying that amount just to drive their old car. Most people upgrade.

For me, this is another example of how corporations + governments work together to artificially create new markets with the consumer picking up the tab. In this case, car maker sales are boosted by legislation that punishes ownership of perfectly viable cars.

You just need to splash 20-whatever thousands to upgrade first. Its only money!

Its about 16.54 dollars every day you use your car in London.

https://government.london/services/ulez/

> Drive a non-compliant vehicle anywhere in London and you pay £12.50 for the day. Check your vehicle first — most newer cars pay nothing — then pay for the day or set up Auto Pay with TfL.

In many places in Europe, older cars are not viable on account of emissions legislation. So, if you want to drive with an older car, you will have to pay a pretty large daily fee to do so. This is done in the name of pollution.

I would expect this legislative approach will be rolled everywhere.

I hate it, fwiw.

> Put a human in the loop and you just end up bottlenecking it

Ok then. Howsabout 3 humans? This would sort out the job losses too!

PS - this is a joke, but perhaps this is where things really will go. Has any technology ever actually yielded less "work"?

While using one's brain has never been 'the thing', it's positively unfashionable nowadays.

Horrible people

What if the (unstated) idea is that Irregular are a security lab and public relations company, and anthropic/open ai know this? (Does the name hint at this?)

Then, irregular can go around making a huge mess in security terms whilst achieving a huge win in terms of public relations, with headlines across the world. And would keep getting hired.

Yes, everything outside of personal experience is somewhat fictional - one probably wouldn't agree with the biases, assumptions or assessments of any author/content creator.

We already live in fascism - governments and corporations are just wings of the same bird.

Shirley, the most sensitive dump is in testicles? Microplastics in balls. Like a ball pit.

What do you think Wittgenstein would say?

Yes, we operate at a different level, and don't serve the same purpose (humans are not food). Similarities are that we are engineered (psychologically, 13+ years of schooling), operate in an artificial environment not a natural one. All sorts of manipulative tricks are used in order to convince us to gift the fruits of our labour. Typically most people hand over > 45% of their effort (taxes) for over 30 years. If the best value humans offered could be provided in just two years of physical growth (like meat cows), we would be facing different terrain and expectations.

One should look to oneself, and act according to what you believe to be right. Internalising an externally provided morality is not it.

If you alter people's natural behaviour so that they are less manipulative, do you think this is the same as having not taken that action? It is a (further) unnatural intervention. It would be like giving someone an emetic because they ate too much.

The anti-manipulation training or the emetic could be beneficial, I agree.

The 'proper' answer would be to address the manipulator, to prevent their interventions, so that they can live their lives naturally, if they are not harming anyone.

> I would fund things which make people less susceptible to manipulation and more equipped to think for themselves.

This also would be manipulative. If you think society can provide you freedom, you are looking in the wrong places.

> You cannot judge if it's worth it from the cow's perspective, it got to live, enjoy the sun, eating in the field, doing cow stuff, same as us.

Yep, same as us.

> We will get much better at manipulation and better at people “writing” things to justify their own feelings.

Yes, ai has strong narcissistic traits. And so do the people that own them. And pay for them.

In response, people in general will become fat more capable of recognising the manipulation. And will become more paranoid.

I don't use Betamax, nor is it well supported.

What can I say - its popular with me! Its also well supported, so that's something.

I was responding to the generic comment that:

> pretty much no-one uses either of them

I use RSS multiple times daily.

For fun, I'll say. You're trying to apply reason to emotion, not realising emotion drives everything. Consequently you think it's acceptable to force everyone to accept (your) superior reasoning, for their own good, whether they want it or not. Think Vulcan.