dfps

100x would mean after one month, people'd say 'I just did 10 years of work.' Is anyone saying that yet?

Don't you think coding is being reassessed in terms of cash value? Egyptian scribes.

Other ways of payment include donations. But in general coded products will (don't you think?) not be cash compensated in the same way as when coding was scarce ('Please take this $300k per year and I don't even care if you complete your tasks!') and there weren't enough products out there yet (the opposite situation as current), and the incumbents were protected by government partnerships.

There are other compensations, but this only applies to people who care about things other than exclusively making the most possible money. Luckily, the workforce now includes many coders so a percentage will be interested in creating products that actually benefit people and are secure.

The idea that 'ideas are cheap' is common but wrong. If that were the case, we would get great new products every day.

Some people are technical and enjoy most building (here coding) but don't have a useful idea. Others have complimentary strengths and weaknesses. Most complex products we have were thought of, designed, and built by different people, as I'm sure you know.

Also, it sounds like you might just be in a different stage or a different personality type. Imagine when you've got your bills paid, but still see many problems around you, and most will not be ones that can be solved through profit motives.

Might there also be a consideration of peak value of OpenAI? If a bunch of competing similar AIs are entering the market, and if the usecase fantasy is currently being humbled, staff might be thinking of bubble valuation.

Did anyone else find Altman conspicuously cooperative with government during his interview at Congress? Usually people are a bit more combative. Like he came off as almost pre-slavish? I hope that's not the case, but I haven't seen any real position on human rights.

This is only true for the majority of people

Obvious things don't need to be stated generally

Why spend energy on non-help

Work for free, change the internet

Looking for probably someone with a few years behind them, maybe 40s or older, who already has made money and had successes. Someone who is somewhat rebellious. Someone who doesn't just accept what's there. Someone with a little free time on their hands, a few hours per week at least. Someone who's a good coder, understands coding websites with cross-site integration, regular but good php, javascript, html, etc. Someone who has integrity.

The internet is bad now mostly because of tools which aren't in people's hands because they don't exist.

You don't have to believe I've come up with several, but I have, over the past several years. On a couple of them, I paid coders to develop them, and got to a decent point of development, but they all have bugs and small things to change, which my coder just drifted on and never actually fixed for months until I fired him. I'm fine with how I spent my time and money working on these, but this wasn't the way to do it. I need a partner, not an employee.

I don't care about money and am fine working on this without making any. However, I can't complete these things because I don't have coding experience or the time to learn coding (and I'm not a coder by birth. If I had to learn to code to do these I'll just leave them and never do them.)

I have no tech connections. I don't live in a place where there are tech people.

Buffet has a long resume.

I guess any sense. New things would be interesting to see people doing.

Or it could be things to make a better internet, which means things that people don't currently have in their hands.

Or even a one-hour window once per week, when they let each account post one domain's post (other accounts can't also post that domain), so any blog can get some exposure. How would they combat malware sites though?

Not to be rude, and i could be wrong, but the rules you mentuon sound stupid and gratuitous, rather than the photographers being a problem.

Yes, but users will accept it and be satisfied if the change is good. How manu of us have tools we continue to use (or long for when using alternatives) because they worked so well.

Most tech seems to ignore usability, though.

Samsung galaxy updates suck.

Korg Electribe rules.

Does anyone feel lile commenting on why stock price fell after this?

Is this a positive service?

It sounds like adblock. Sounds great until you consider youre defunding things you want to exist (for free)...

It wont apply to everyone. For people who enjoy most movies that come out, for example the superhero series and wizards and warrior series, this wont apply because your taste is easy to meet (the majority of consumers).

However, if you arent satisfied by these films but want something that provides more in terms of story, originality, verisimilitude, revelation, or some other of a lot of possibilities, youll look out at the hige catalog of films that have been produced and find only dozens that are really something you enjoy. Theyre hard to make, and so theres only a few directors who have made them. When you watch eyes wide shut, you know you cant get ot elsewhere.

Why did they end it? Was it losing money?

In some ways it seemed superior to the other giants, plus it was tied to most peoples' google accounts.

Why didnt they just add advertisements, paid posts, and clean up the ui?

How much of this is in response to the tyranical state thats been trying to subsume theirs?

People who publish on social media are already very vulnerable to destoying their ability to distibute what they have to say. Their existence is fragile.

"is here to stay" because what?

Isn't there a difference between the mobile market selling products and users investing time, energy and their persons on public online platforms?

The article isn't about the current situation, but about the possible response to it, right?

From other reading, I got the impression the circumstances were suspicious. The obit refers to heart failure, but without details. So I'm left without any certainty.

Good points.

Nice suggestion! What would be your own answer to it?

You might compare the violence with that in a very strict society, like the Soviet Union, or with any other country, whether Latin American countries lately, many African nation with various governments, or certain parts of North America (Dade might be a forerunner), though, so is the reason for violence in Somalia attributable to their form of law?

Isn't the important point here to do with the point at which an individual can, if they want to and are willing to spend the energy, alter a particular instance of disagreement? whereas in the Somali (or other non-government system), individuals can both effect particular justice according to a particular grievance, and individuals can effect what justice is done and how, individuals in our countries have no such ability, overwhelmed on basically every level by the power of the government?

As I understand it from van Notten, the power is institutional and fluid. There are accustomed, practiced, entrenched norms of behavior and custom, which provide general rules for what behavior is against the law -- although it becomes a matter of law only when it affects someone else to the degree they want to seek justice to redress a wrong. Power is embodied by clan leaders (elders who have the support of the majority of their community) and judges, etc, but is fluid in the sense that at any time, if they do something the community doesn't support, they will be replaced casually by their community.

Thanks for these links.

The Stateless article is a good book report. One nice phrase from it: "Thus while a judge may form his own principles, his customers will decide his competence as a judge."

One error to be aware of is in the following paragraph. Successful plaintiffs are not free to resort to self-help to enforce payments. Self-help, as I understand it through van Notten, is a last ditch measure when no justice is agreeable. Successful rulings are enforced by an individual's own jilib, according to van Notten.

Good point.

Minor counter-point: I'm not sure if libertarianism is the goal of Somalians. A certain degree of liberty -- a significant say in how they conduct their own lives and not having a government telling them what not to do as much as we are used to -- but I think they also see the value of a court to temper individual liberty in certain cases.

A couple differences between their system and ours: the point where individual rights and social limitations meet is found where another individual suffers some grievance -- some of which, however, appear to be cultural and not material, although I'm not sure how small this segment is. Also, they seem to have some say in their courts, who administers justice for them, and how its administered.

Successful by what standards or measures? I don't think the "cohere" argument is true, but do you have some examples I could think about? The Soviet Union didn't cohere, for one example I can think of. Neither did the British Empire, including America.

Is there any other basis for seeking peace ever? I think van Notten means here that this is the reason peace is usually sought, because violence is horrifying to those people as well. In North America we also hold violence as the reason to respect social order.

What are the main points about 'the nature and function of law in human societies, particularly in the developed world' you had in mind?

This is an interesting point. I'd like to get some information on this myself. Of course, replacing ANY government or social system with another one will result in social upheaval and difficulties. In the book, van Notten alludes to this, and provides some insight, but it isn't really a clear and comprehensive statement.