aggie

I'm also curious what it really means to have CPS called on you. People talk about it like it's a foregone conclusion that they'll take your kids away. I just can't believe they would do so lightly. Now of course even having to interact with them must be extremely stressful.

I've long expected Waymo's approach to prevail simply because - aside from whether vision-only proves good enough to some standard - it will be easy to lobby for regulations that favor the more conservative approach.

But I also don't think we can take anything from what Waymo claims about the feasibility of vision-only.

How does #3 square with Anthropic's literal warehouse full of books we've seen from the copyright case? Did OpenAI scan more books? Or did they take a shadier route of training on digital books despite copyright issues, but end up with a deeper library?

Why do I see so many critiques of the abundance movement based on factional motives and ad hominem, and so little critique of the arguments they make?

If progressives want to expand government, government needs to be effective. Abundance liberalism is about learning from the mistakes of the past and making government better able to achieve to goals both liberals and progressives want.

If we're talking about factional infighting, leftists are "afraid" the neoliberals will offer a compelling path forward instead of pivoting to socialism, so they resist arguments that would otherwise be beneficial to their political goals.

The value of AI is easy to see personally, concretely. But there is always a gap between concrete value in your hands and how that plays out in larger systems. The ability to work remotely could intuitively project to outsourcing of almost all knowledge work to cheaper labor markets, and yet that has only happened at the margins. The world is complex and complicated, reserve a measure of doubt.

It's far from simple. There is no clear delineation between food and non-food offered by saying Doritos are a science experiment. Is an ear of corn real food? It has of course been significantly modified by selective breeding. And your grandma ate GMO corn.

If you're implying the marginal cost of a 6-hour AV errand is almost zero, I think you're describing a prosperous future.

This is also easily managed with congestion pricing.

I've seen it discussed on Twitter for a while, mostly on the right. As best I can tell it is related to a general trend toward distrust of big agriculture, big pharma, big institutions in general as seed oils are painted as a product of that whereas animal fats are a "retvrn" type of diet (or from another POV, a Michael Pollan diet). Funny to see the political factions shifting around and the horseshoe connecting left and right on nutrition.

Most people do not have elite resumes and most people are not hiring people with elite resumes. There's plenty of uncertainty in hiring in general, and that being the case with bootcamps isn't much different than a typical resume with a 4-year degree.

Unless EMG signal processing has had some breakthrough in the past 10 years, it is not a very precise interaction mode. I worked in a lab developing it for quadriplegics to use with the muscle on their temple (we tested above the thumb as well). You can get rough 2-axis control with some practice, but that's with an adhesive EMG pad. Can a wrist band get a clean signal?

For typing, I'd expect you need to combine with eye tracking. So you're back to the Vision Pro UI.

On its own, EMG makes a good button, I'd expect. Maybe 1-axis control.

Microplastics seem bad. The evidence of adverse effects seems marginal. But in the bigger picture, plastics provide enormous wealth to the world. We should look for ways to mitigate any adverse environmental effects, of course, but it's not at all obvious to me that the ROI of doing so in my personal life is positive.

It's worth considering that throughout history there have been people who have felt this way. That suggests this perception is a natural tendency of humans and it does not have a good track record of turning out be be correct.

This is actually a common dynamic between humans, especially when there is a status or knowledge imbalance. If you do user interviews, one of the most important skills is not injecting your views into the conversation.

"Small n" is not always a problem. They are not trying to tease out a small effect size between two treatments. This is a strong signal -- literally children can now hear when they couldn't before. A small sample size does not allow statistical noise to produce that effect.

That may have been critical to forming the network but not for maintaining it. As long as the consumer UX is good (which is a big assumption I have no idea about), the creators will do whatever they need to to reach that audience. You lose some at the margins but that's probably low-quality content anyway.

In practice, peer review isn't even that. Most referees are not double-checking your statistical analysis. What they focus on is whether the research is interesting and has it appropriately considered relevant literature. Even that is not always done carefully.

Here is an argument that peer review is basically a failed experiment: https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall...

This assumes everyone sees all the headlines. This approach is very bad for people paying attention, but the type of people to pay attention to this kind of news would probably be unwilling to go near LP again if it was revealed all at once. Their play might be to assume the initial headlines get the most coverage so soften the message there, then wait for a general audience to tune out and reveal the worst parts.

Is there a better study you can point to? From what I remember looking into this topic the research has always provided ambiguous results with lots of context-dependence.

The marginal value to your career of a day's work is probably highest during your notice period, because of the opportunity for a last impression on your network for future job references etc.

This is exactly the kind of weak external validity that has caused much of the replication crisis.

"AI Robot cops show implicit bias resulting in 3 deaths" is a headline today if you remove the AI robot part. As evidenced by the comments in this thread and any other on these robots, the public is extremely skeptical of them. If they do indeed exhibit these kinds of harms, the public will likely enact severe restrictions on them. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up in a situation where a lot of benefits are left on the table due to over-caution, just as you might see with self-driving cars that kill fewer people but are highlighted in the news when the rare accident does happen.

"What you have built is illegal" is hardly the same as "I don't believe in your vision."

I'm sorry but why should we take WSB posters at their word? Here's an alternate view (also from a reddit post):

"WSB's power users are younger finance bros. It's 30s investment bankers and portfolio managers memeing with each other and cosplaying as 'autists.' If you didn't know what a gamma squeeze was 48 hours ago, you are their exit strategy and the down payment on their next Porsche."

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/l7bl3z/brokers_o...

Occam's razor does not actually mean the simplest explanation is correct. If that was the case you could explain anything with "a wizard did it." Occam's razor says that if you have 2 possible explanations, but one adds unnecessary clauses, the one with only the necessary clauses is more likely right.

For example, two explanations: 1. There was an avalanche and birds ate the soft tissue 2. There was an avalanche, birds ate the soft tissue, and Mars was in retrograde

Occam's razor tells you the first explanation is more likely to be correct. It does not tell you 4 or 5 natural events occurring can't be the best explanation if there isn't a more parsimonious alternative explanation.

Do we know it was Pelosi's computer and not just a staffer in her office? I also imagine it's a lot harder to walk out of the building with an open laptop in hand than a closed one in a bag.

This laptop is probably used by staffers in their 20s and 30s. It's not like Nancy Pelosi is administrating IT security.

Is it obscene to buy a thousand dollar laptop when 500 dollar laptops are fine for most users? $500 for headphones seems like a very arbitrary standard for what is excessive. A billion people live on a dollar a day. They would consider spending $50 -- or even $15 -- on a restaurant meal to be obscene. It's all relative.

Why are you linking to a news report on the preliminary summary released by Barr? It was clearly crafted to drive an initial narrative of exoneration. The actual Mueller report is much more damning for Trump, including findings that were redacted for many months, after public attention had died down.

I would be shocked if their R&D isn't far ahead of what they share publicly. We've seen in the recent conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia that drones have become a major factor in modern battlefields. And not just surveillance, as the article talks about, but essentially as affordable missiles.

At least there's an obvious civilian benefit from this work.

A lot of these issues sound like bad workmanship and not inherent to the prefab process.