Retric

That reason was to generate more works.

Before the conception of copyright artists would create physical works to be sold after they died to support their families in part because such works would be more valuable after they died.

Indirect effects matter both for society and as a legal question. To this day many elderly / sick artists are working not for their own personal interests but for other people.

Thus copyright not expiring as soon as people die is supporting the original goal of copyright. The total length of copyright is a different question.

Shorter copyright terms don’t prevent someone from retiring after making it big. To do that you’d need to cap how much they could make in total not the number of years their work was protected. Instead you’re essentially talking about hypothetical people rather than anything approaching a meaningful number of artists.

Further lotteries attract suckers based on potential payouts. Just as the NFL or NBA convinces young kids to work hard, successful artists are a major part of pipeline of young kids practicing their craft.

People do care about income streams for their descendants or charitable organizations etc. So it’s not completely ineffective.

What’s broken is extending copyright after a work was already created. But that’s true even if the creator was still alive.

Companies with projects that are doing well don't try to hire consultants who specialized in saving failing projects.

Large companies where every project is going well are rare.

I agree companies with good AI strategies are unlikely to use these people, but excluding failures is just as much a bias as excluding winners. AI lets you shoot your sold in the foot even faster shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s still something to consider.

There’s some selection bias involved especially based on their marking, but you’re misreading what they are saying.

even within projects that we have observed in passing while doing totally unrelated work.

The kind of companies with failing projects seem to be very bad at using AI. That’s different from the normal mix of success and failures at most large companies.

Homo Neanderthalensis is not Homo sapiens [sapiens].

Not the same species, but still capable of occasionally producing viable offspring.

Thus the common ancestor as essentially a midpoint between each population would be more compatible genetically. It’s essentially a ring species through time rather than space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Species is a rather arbitrary line here. Humans split from Neanderthal ~500k-800k years ago but could still interbreed 40k years ago. We’re likely more closely related to our common ancestors at that point of divergence than Neanderthal suggesting given the opportunity modern humans could interbreed with our ancestors ~500k-1m years ago.

Of course that’s just genetic compatibility, there’s plenty of other ways to define species.

Any of the above, the world could just decide arbitrarily everyone with 1+B is suddenly broke. That’s not likely but it doesn’t break the laws of physics or anything.

If they stop believing money has value (so they wouldn't want to come to my house), men with guns will come to their house

You’re assuming there’s going to be large groups of people that believe money still has value. However, there’s nothing inherently different about the first group of people with guns and the second group of people with guns.

If hypothetically there’s a large moon heading to earth so everyone is going to die, everyone is responding to the same situation.

Less extreme situations result in societal collapse, and that’s just one of many options.

Signal is easier to detect with more data to work with.

Largely AI generated books are a vastly different situation than a one paragraph homework assignment. But multiple rounds of homework assignments would change the accuracy.

It’s an arms race where the AI companies are at an extreme disadvantage due to relative training costs.

Economics has long recognized the distinction between GDP and value creation, but not everyone in a field is going to produce the best work.

Intangibles and unpaid work get ignored not because they cannot be included but because doing so is harder.

No, Money, Votes, etc has value because the general public gives it value. All billionaires could be instantly broke if the general public decided they were broke. Votes are ultimately a method of control not an inherent power unto themselves.

Societies have gotten really good at convincing people they don’t have power so it’s rarely exercised but it’s always worth remembering the difference between abstraction and the underlying reality.

That hardware costs GW of electricity at scale. So barring major disruption in R&D you hit a cost curve cliff where new hardware is simply more cost effective even if existing hardware is free.

Some workloads may make sense running for a few hours a day during cheap solar prices on outdated hardware, but in less than a decade the value is very much hitting zero.

20 year old fiber can have another 10-20 years of useful lifespan remaining, I think compute is going to be valuable for a while but even a 7 year cycle doesn’t change much.

Most compute isn’t going to be new at a potential crash and recovery takes time.

Most of the cost in a fiber rollout is actual fiber in the ground which could be upgraded by simply swapping a few relatively cheap bits of equipment.

Data centers and electrical infrastructure has a similar long term value, but most of the AI investment is in compute/manufacturing capacity for current nodes which doesn’t age nearly as well.

Caterpillar sells way more than tracked vehicles, and very much uses CAT as its logo.

Nintendo could have named itself after playing cards, but that wouldn’t have kept up with its current business model.

Companies can be named after random nonsense, ‘pink catfish’ could easily be the world’s #1 supplier of firearms and nobody would find it strange.

Caterpillar, Apple, Kellogg, etc really don’t have anything to do with the underlying product but neither do people’s names.

Not quite, you can get them changed if you’re willing to announce to everyone that your stock is wildly overvalued and is going to crash.

Houses don’t shrink as they age.

When everything is built huge you don’t end up with homes that are cheap to heat, cool, or maintain. That’s why building affordable houses is actually a real issue.

What’s really dumb is the average number of people living in a house has tanked over time but the median new home just keeps getting larger. In an efficient market you’d expect new homes to match what buyers want, but regulatory capture has severely distorted the market.

You can enter arbitrary characters easily on a US keyboard, English still doesn’t use quotes like that.

It’s a mistake nothing more.

The day after your physical doing another physical provides next to no benefit.

Healthcare is a world of diminishing returns at ever increasing costs. But that doesn’t mean the low effort first steps are less valuable.

I think the only metric that matters is total medical care provided on a national / global scale.

It may take vastly more training but on average a full annual physical provides less benefit on average than a 30 second vaccination requiring minimal training. Value creation and skill are wildly different things in the medical profession.

“Understanding” without being able to use that knowledge for anything isn’t useful for getting stuff done.

The flip side is even more interesting. There’s a great number of electrical engineers with significant physics backgrounds who don’t really understand how electricity actually works, but they can still solve useful problems. By understanding I mean they can describe what underlying physical phenomena reactance represents etc.

Travel / multiple homes confuse the issue because nobody spends much time on their 5th house they use less than a month per year, so the decoration is mostly outsourced to 3rd parties.

The portion of rich people homes they actually use are often quite cluttered. The simple limitation of needing to walk to a room to use it means spreading out across a huge home gets annoying. Semi public spaces for guests on the other hand can look like hotels because that’s effectively what they are.

Fair point, there’s many types of corn but for anyone interested.

Sweet Corn: For Fresh Eating and therefore harvested with a high moisture content which hurts preservation without freezing and total yield.

Dimple is a Field corn, harvested later resulting in a dryer product, lasts longer and has a higher yield.

Flint Corn: Mostly decorative as it looks cool, but again still edible after grinding.

Heirloom: lots of shapes and sizes but significantly lower yield.

Popcorn: A tiny slice of the market but pops when heated.

Filed corn is harvested at a different time resulting in a dryer product.

But yes if people get hungry enough, field corn easily qualifies as actual food.

Cost plus isn’t nearly as common as it used to be.

But you still run into similar issues regardless of the contract structure. Try and build a rail network without anyone in government wanting something changed from the initial design for 20 years.

There’s a transition point where things stop being micro plastics, then nano plastics, and become specific chemicals.

Those molecules may be toxic but the interactions are distinct from microplastics or nano plastics.

The options increase when you’re already breaking the law.