vtange

>I also think income inequality might lead to more loneliness.

I'd say poverty just amplifies the feeling of loneliness. Japan has the same problem of loneliness [0] and they have a pretty good Gini coefficient compared to the rest of the OECD.[1]

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/world/asia/japan-lonely-d...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...

But then why not just make the shortcut to the game inconvenient to access (hide it in a folder in a folder in a folder) or just plain uninstall the game (adds the extra step of reinstalling to play).

Even if you wanted to take steps against the outcomes you wish to prevent, everything comes in baby steps. "Some random database issue" becomes "volunteering for some no-name environmental group".

Life rarely just gives you a large amount of agency and responsibility. I've personally just accepted that life might just be watching a train wreck in slow motion and will steer my personal ship as I need to do what I can.

Taiwan and Ukraine are very different.

The U.S. doesn't have much history promising Ukraine defense as it was part of the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. In contrast, Taiwan was practically there since 1949.

Taiwan's economy is multiple times the size of Ukraine's and is comparable to the likes of Saudi Arabia. To not defend Taiwan would send a very bad signal to all American allies that unless you're worth more than Taiwan, we'll sell you out. Assuming China continues to grow more powerful, this also means South Korea would be in danger as well. This is not even accounting the fact that if China controls Taiwan, China will control a majority of sea lanes to Korea and Japan. If she wished then she could interfere with oil supplies to those countries.

Plus the U.S. already goes great lengths to restrict China from acquiring U.S. technology, much of which has supply lines and partners in Taiwan. Letting China take Taiwan would mean a massive change unless you think we'll just accept that every Taiwanese company now will be forced to put backdoors for the Chinese.

Related, earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16449326

But if everything were open-source, anything new that's closed-source would get negative-brownie points cause it's not free.

That's the thing about open-source though, it's a race to the bottom for market share. We saw it with React and Vue.

I also get that open-source is a maintenance liability with issue and requests, but I also see plenty of open-source software that do well "provided as-is".

Thanks for the clarification. I believe UE4 is still a good example of how the PR-bias towards anything 'open-source'. All it took was a few headlines with "Unreal" and "open-source" and I naturally grouped it with the likes of Blender and Godot.

For the longest time now I've always held a bit of bias towards closed-source software, but over time I'm slowly realizing that open source is probably the way to go.

If you look at the world as if it was running on a tech tree in a video game, making closed source technology only forces people to retrace your footsteps(re-research the tech, if you will) or worse, find a better alternative (leaving you and your creation in the dust). By open-sourcing, you effectively stake a flag with your name on it in the tech tree and incentivize people to use your creation as a foundation for future techs. Sure, people will be free to use copies of your work at will, but they still have to give credit to you, and won't be trying to do things differently.

And that's not even mentioning that open-source stuff generally has a PR-boost compared to closed-source. If you make something closed-source, you will always have to worry about the appearance of an open-source competitor. I have seen closed-source stuff be completely eclipsed by open-source alternatives once the latter reached a critical level of quality. I mean think about it: Unreal Engine 4 is open source, would anyone start a closed-source project to compete against it? All the best minds will naturally ask you, 'Why not just work on UE4?' Yes you can fork it, but the public will always turn to the original of the fork unless your fork achieves something really different in a good way.

So in a way, open-source is the most asshole-way you can do things cause it shuts down any idea of a copy/similar alternative to your work.

So you're saying this whole world is a game where if a species is not intelligent enough to know when to stop reproducing in order to save the environment, it's an inevitable game over? :)

It's unlikely we will leapfrog from human-written code to relying on black-box generated code in one step. Everyone's been pointing to AI being used to augment existing jobs, as opposed to outright replacement.

In order to augment a front-end developer well, we'll need human-readable code, unless we like reading uglified code/make an AI for that too.

Wouldn't that effectively render the whole 'matching people based off the passwords they hold dear' premise pointless then?

When the inevitable day comes when we fully and thoroughly finish scanning every nook and cranny of the Pyramids, I wonder if they will be able to maintain their novelty? Will tourists eventually cast the place aside as "been there, seen it all" once technology has fully mapped the place?

Except "work twice as much" is a very vague term. Do they work twice as long? Do they have twice the amount of resources? What is the value of their output - is it twice higher than A? For how long do they work "twice as much" before burnout and overwork deaths happen like in Japan?

In Japan it is well-known that a long-hours work culture doesn't translate to actual productive work. People end up being masters of "looking productive" rather than actually being productive.

At some point though money ends up being a means to obtain a standard of living / a world worth living in. There is no point earning money if you never spend it to get something you want.

Money also takes precious time and opportunity to earn. Know what you want and aim for it asap. All the money in the world won't buy you fond memories of an adventurous youth if you spent all of your teens, 20s and 30s slaving away for currency that can be inflated to nothingness over time. All the money in the world won't save you if you end up accepting a totalitarian world where you or your loved ones can be cast away by armed police or where making one-too-many Taiwanese friends endangers your social standing.

This reminds me of an article I read a long while back (I don't remember the title..) that basically argued that by lowering the barrier of entry to your content, be it a game, app, etc., you make it such that others have nothing to lose for slinging mud. IIRC the same article did a study on online free-to-play and subscription games and noticed that games with higher barrier of entry, be it with price or even a lottery system, tend to see more civility in their communities, since people have something to lose if they are banned.

It would be great if someone could link that article in or something.

Are there any stories/examples of MIT-licensed projects being subject to hostile take-overs?

Also if it's you are the originator of a project what's stopping you from using the GPL license but not disclosing your own source while you commercialize?

Good idea. Though the phone will have to look like it's not hiding/restricting the officer in any way for this to work.

I think they named it exactly this to highlight the possibility of malicious use for defamation/impersonation attacks. Plus if it was really used to say impersonate Obama, it'd be rightly referred by name in the news as "Obamanet", which to a layperson would sound like a smoking gun.

Lyrebird.ai similarly followed this approach as they realized their own technology could be used for nefarious purposes given the current political climate.

Maslow's Hierarchy in action - Tim Cook is at a higher section of the pyramid than most Americans. He's probably at a stage where he's looking to achieve things he cannot achieve purely with money. Hence the "money isn't everything" argument.

Requiring a super-majority might work...until big money finds a way to buy itself a super-majority.

I'm surprised the words "capital gains" are not mentioned at all in the article. It's already well known that the richest of the 1% did not get there purely through a high wage/salary.

Some might blame loose monetary policy for providing easy money for the 1% in the USA (if you can borrow money and speculate for free, why not, after all), but if that's the case Japan really stands out; they've been QE'ing since their '80s bubble popped and they've managed to keep a relatively good Gini coefficient relative to the rest of the developed world (they're more egalitarian than their East Asian peers). You'd think that having two lost decades with your economy stuck in neutral, the Japanese 1% would just leave their country in the dust.

We'd have to be totally separated from those colonies for an unthinkable amount of time for stuff like that to happen - I'd imagine we'd at least keep contact with our own colonies and the Native Americans were largely separated from Eurasia for thousands of years and crazy stuff didn't happen aside from a gap in immune system prep.

Do you know how exactly the distorted object differs from the original? Is it based on color? lighting? Some subtle difference in texture or material?

I know that for 2D images there currently exists something like this where some sort of pixelated noise (color?) is added to the image to force an incorrect classification.

If you like the idea of clusters of building complexes you'd also find interest in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

Heck, it might be easier to train an AI for the task of passing coding interviews as opposed to you know, actually replacing real software engineers at their jobs.

I know many Chinese that manage to live in America with minimal knowledge of English. There are many sizeable Chinatowns and "bubble" communities in America where a Chinese/Taiwanese person could immerse himself/herself in and never really have to deal with English.

Not to mention for audiophiles there is the extra concern about sound quality loss.

Doesn't this just mean people will eventually start building artificial social presences to point to instead of simply lacking any sort of presence?

Put options lose value over time. You are speculating on the near-term risk of stocks losing value - effectively trying to time the market/predict the weather.

Selling put options is a bet that the put options will expire worthless, which is a bet that stocks will continue to go up/not fall.

I honestly believe the insurance analogy for options is misleading. The value of an option is quite literally the difference in value between selling the stock at market price and at the option strike. As a stockholder you don't save yourself as much from buying put options regularly as you would from say getting a surgery covered with health insurance.