59percentmore

how would any alternative design prevent intended behavior?

If you're asking how something other than the sqlite database Chrome profile data is stored in would prevent the intended behavior of deleting corrupted files silently, obviously the two issues are orthogonal. But a file-based system would mean a corrupted file (the others untouched) rather than a corrupted database (everything is gone). I'm horrified at the idea of replacing my resilient, inherently modular set of files with a brittle monolithic database.

Because having a slave do whatever you say can also enable some pretty remarkable workflows, but that doesn't stop it from being too morally and economically expensive to become ubiquitous AND sustainable. LLM usage certainly doesn't involve sapient beings and so doesn't carry the same moral reprehensibility as slavery, but in real terms, it's probably even more of a financial quandary.

Louis Rossmann has a number of videos from the period when he was searching for retail space in Manhattan. He would take a laser measure and verify listing info himself. The sf on listings was almost universally not just wrong, but audaciously wrong. "Whatcha gonna do about it?" wrong.

You seem to be under the impression that any part of the average contemporary identity-and-behavioral-development stack encourages asking questions. Babysitting/teach-to-the-test schools don't, authoritarian parents and community authorities and corporate overseers don't, consensus-manufacturing politicians and media don't. (Heck, even our national soccer team doesn't.)(That was a joke.)

Worse, people who find it within themselves to ask questions anyway frequently face silence or a smackdown. The Internet's Own Boy remains no longer with us.

After the nth time of my Android Chrome app silently corrupting and auto-deleting my browsing history (all of it; it's not a bug, it's the intended behavior!), would love to hear about a file alternative that's modular enough to resist that kind of catastrophic failure and interoperable enough to inspect/repair if anything ever happens.

Note that he simply downvoted me. I refuse to believe that it's because equisapiens no longer shock.

I don't know what you're implying, but that's an incorrect read anyhow. "The people in 'MY camp' want me to die, they just don't know that they're talking about me, and it's bad and consistent enough that I've had to mute mutuals to avoid constant anxiety and demoralization," is better.

I think it's more that serious artists who don't want to burn their bridges are keeping their AI experimentation/production a secret. It's difficult to openly talk about that work when your friends and acquaintances are saying things like, "People who use gen-ai should die," or, "If you use gen-ai, I never want to talk to you again, instant block."

That side is quite vocal, and has been effective at resulting their fanbases into a witch hunt for anyone who's ever even touched ChatGPT. So anyone who disagrees just stays quiet, for the most part.

So, would you agree that working creatively around the Disney-fied locking-down of those tools in order to produce something "provocative, uncomfortable, taboo, explicit, subversive, or challenging of norms" would at least begin to approach being a process that involved at least a semblance of artistic merit?

Because I can assure you that much of what I've gen'd checks those boxes (unless Sorry To Bother You's third-act twist no longer unsettles).

They steal from those they have the power to steal from. Power is measured as a delta from a baseline. If corruption requires power, it requires inequality.

What if some people are just bad at doing things for themselves? We have a society, communities, families... ...because humans are truly pitiful on their own. (Said with a sad smile.)

Consider that you just haven't found something useful for me to do.

If it's too much for you, I guess you could stop. If wouldn't be your fault if I couldn't keep things together.

This is not a result of income inequality. It is a result of supply and demand.

Incorrect. Inequality increases the pool of wealth with which "haves" may bid up the prices of commodities, real property, and services. And they do, effectively increasing demand. Transitively, inequality drives inflation, i.e., local conditions.

That is an aphorism, not a universal truth

You might want to revisit the definition of "aphorism". (It generally includes the word "truth".)

You may be judged as corrupt by what you do, not by what you have.

And have another: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Implicit is that you will hammer nails. Property is intrinsically tied with action. Held power is to be wielded, even when it's not warranted; the only way not to is to give it up.

This is envy as evidence.

I would love to understand this obsession with envy among the elite. If I take your gun and immediately throw it into the ocean, was that envy?

It's funny to me that you deride a "system-zero" world and then immediately champion a "just world". They're the same thing. And though you may believe in it, I never said I did.

The practical solution to a world with increasing (wealth) inequality is to decrease it. It will never reach zero. That's not the point. It's to affect the balance of power so that when someone powerful steps out of line, it is possible to punish them; so that things earned can be kept (and so that he definition of "earn" may be reasonable itself); so that we're not forced to consider the farce of referring to a reaction to someone's previously-accumulated wealth as "pre-punishment."

What qualifies a level as inordinate?

One could say that it's relative.

You redefined the word poverty there, that's not the common or dictionary definition.

He says, without citation.

Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money

No one says that wealth equality leads to an absolutely equal society; that's a straw man. What is incontrovertibly true, and empirically proven to be so, is that societies that are more equal in terms of wealth are less unequal socially, and see fewer negative outcomes that can be attributed to any disparity that does exist, wealth or otherwise. This is because we are talking about effects directly downstream of resource allocation, and monetary wealth is the primary way resources are denominated. Maybe if commodities were priced directly in Twitter follower count or bench press, you'd have a point.

The poor and rich are not equally corrupt (again, something shown empirically).

If you've ever tried to get around Gemini or ChatGPT's guardrails, stock footage poisoning, and just general tendency to produce the most frustratingly banal version of your prompt possible, then you would understand that prompting AI images and video absolutely already involves a clash between reality and intent (in the sense that this is Google and OpenAI's world, we're just living in it).

I would love to get around the "individual skill" part, but all of my artist friends would excommunicate me if they knew the AI projects I've been working on, let alone if I asked them to collaborate.

If everyone is poor, there's no poverty, just an ubiquitous state of subsistence. Poverty is always relative to some existing state of abundance.

That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system

It's a weakness of any system with overbearing inequality. Equal societies don't face this issue to the same extent because those wronged can mount an equal defense or offense as those doing the wrong, at which point righteousness should prevail.

That's incorrect. The baseline need that poverty is calculated relative to is itself calculated relative to local conditions. Because inequality drives those local conditions, poverty cannot exist without it.

Your post is proof of the insidiousness of inequality. It allows for outcomes to be warped by the presence or lack of aggregated capital, without presenting a direct attack on outcomes. As long as you are able to limit the contextual scope, you are able to claim a "just world", even when clear injustice is extant.

It is then important to insist that the scope stay broad enough to involve all related implications.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." This suggests that there is a functional relationship between the size of power imbalances and the amount of corruption that exists. It is not that some people use their power or wealth to take advantage of others; it is that inordinate power and wealth ensures that abuses will occur.

You don't have Apple stores without a functioning state either.

You're attributing elements to my post that don't exist in it. I think this is perhaps projection.

Further, as a proponent of nuclear power, you should be aware of the eforts that have gone into preventing deaths from the multiple nuclear plant accidents that have taken place. This is in part because of an awareness that a single major accident would kill support for nuclear power globally. The more plants exist, the higher the probability of this. It is therefore in the best interests of nuclear power proponents to limit its share and to replace the majority of fossil fuel power with clean renewables.

Corruption is a enabled by inequality.

The terrible labor laws exist because of the inequality. The people with servants write the laws and, in their magnaminity, don't let the servants vote.

Logically-speaking, poverty can't exist without inequality. It's a condition of "want" that requires others to "have".

Practically-speaking, inequality is insidious because it enables violations of rights and unjust denial of opportunity even when poverty has been eradicated. Cold comfort, to the middle-class family of people mowed down by a rich motorist who faces negligible jail time because the money they can spend on a lawyer is outside the scope of what the legal system is built to handle.

*raise the prices

Because the difference between what he's done and, say, the practice of the people who peddled opioids for a paycheck is one of degree, not kind.

How many tons does it take to make a dirty bomb that irradiates a city center or small downtown? To poison an aquifer when storage fails? How much does it cost to make sure neither of these events, or any other similar hypothetical, doesn't happen, not even once?

I used to think so, too, but the Steam/Valve stuff from the past few years has opened my eyes to the usefulness of arbitration as a leveler (specifically, the parts of agreements that force big companies to pay all of the costs and fees).

But definitely outlaw small clause carve-outs.

Actually, the best way that doesn't get you bogged down in battery charges (for beating a teenager) or manslaughter charges (oops, your barbed wire caused a fatal infection) is social services that help fight poverty and teenage vagrancy (and possibly an accessible iPhone model that takes the edge off of the iPhone jones/envy that your iPhone marketers purposely built).

The assumption is that no one has the authority to decide that all races aren't equally qualified for every position.

And a common rebuttal to the objection is that systemic racism is often difficult to untangle in a way that produces a neat chain of cause and effect (not least of which because discrimination can happen unconsciously or secretly); because the impact exists whether intent can be shown or not, the desire remains to ameliorate that impact.

If the issue happens upstream of the defendant to a claim - generally an organization being sued by an individual with fewer resources - it incentivizes such entities to push for changes upstream, so that they don't get stuck with the bill.

I wish I could find a position that would. My SAT scores, by far, outshine my CV.

It was "mild" because they rolled the would-be losses into high-risk vehicles and strategies that eventually created the GFC, which included Fed policy to juice asset markets. The Dotcom bubble was the rolling over of the Reagan/Papa Bush-era savings and loan crisis (Greenspan was involved in that, too), and (tinfoil hats on now) a massive bond market liquidity crisis preceded the COVID pandemic flash crash and emergency liquidity injections/stimulus/PPP by a scant few months (and was quietly swept under the rug).

We deserve what we get if we don't act on the obvious pattern, at this point. We've spent half a century throwing the public under the bus just so that a few oligarchs don't have to pay out for their bad bets, and Greenspan was absolutely their man for a significant portion of that campaign in the class wars.

IIUC they've been slowly expanding availability over the years. Someone who was denied in their 20s might be able to get it now in their 30s.