yifanl

The real world isn't a Sid Meier game, just advancing down the tech tree can't solve every problem.

I mean, I've certainly used these cheap rhetorical tricks myself offhand, but I'd at least try to avoid using it when vagueposting something this out of pocket.

Well don't leave us hanging, what's the news?

There exists a subset of business owners who would prefer hiring workers without standard protections or rights.

What are you proposing exactly, global distribution of cyanide capsules?

It's quite hollow and plasticky on the inside. This is not a bad thing nor a mark of cheapness, but it sounds very roomy and echo-y for a keyboard, so if you like the sound of the clacking on a keyboard, it's quite amplified by the board.

I wasn't around to use an actual C64 to compare the sound against that, but I suspect it's an intentional choice as a retro keyboard to mark itself apart from the foamy modern keyboards that tend to dampen the keyboard.

Can you use more than 2 words in your explanation next time? Reciting known talking points offers little.

The solution is simple, if unpalateable: No restrictions, but if its ever detected you are running a bot, you are punished in a way that ruins your life, without exception.

It isn't, but the history of profitable software has been repackaging the same data in different UIs.

It's almost as if moral values aren't assigned universally.

What's the difference between the two exactly?

Ads are the hacking of attention. Without attention, ChatGPT cannot exist.

We're way too far down this current UIUX disaster to pretend "sane defaults" is a nice-to-have.

You can't, as that removes the main value add of the AI.

Sublime

Nintendo would be the big publisher who still largely releases games the same way, but they aren't American.

They did it on permissively licensed code would be the difference.

You don't get to decide how you're hated is the point.

Thank you, I take great pride and effort in compressing as much emotional weight into as short a statement as possible.

I agree that if things were different, things would be different, but I'm not sure what this adds to the conversation.

And then what happened?

> For the most-dominant military power in the world to "whoopsy" run out of weapons because of a low-stakes engagement isn't readily believable.

This is a concerning statement, as it implies it'd be impossible for the United States to lose an engagement regardless of any and all evidence.

They set off circuit breakers for KOSPI twice in two days.

We're back to Von Neumann architecture in the worst way possible.

They have authority over you, therefore all interactions must be taken under that context.

What running shoes are you buying that last 2-3 years?

Can I have LLMs replace my GLP-1?

Only truly exceptional executives can be SBF or Elizabeth Holmes.

Its true that things change, but it's also true that there will eventually be a day when the last programmer is hired.

There's actually zero difference between a bottle of water and a river reservoir if you think about it.