dudul

We can decide to just... you know... do things.

OK, this is Twitter-level conversation here, not interested. But hey, stay positive, more power to you.

Oh! Damn! Stupid me! "We have to collectively decide this", when is the meeting to vote on that again? When is the last time we all decided something collectively?

WTF does the pandemic have to do with this? "dark time", oh yeah, people stuck at home watching Netflix, what an incommensurable suffering!

Buddy, I can admire the naive childish optimism to a degree, but come on. "We just have to all decide". Do you live in a Disney movie?

There is no lack of imagination here, there is realism. You think you display "imagination" by just regurgitating all the tired tropes of old science fiction? Oh wow! Robots to clean the ocean! How novel! Nobody has ever thought about this!

The reality is nobody is going to build robots to clean the ocean because there is no money to be made. There will be robots to clean rich people's pools, sure. And it will put pool boys out of a job, great.

I admire the naivety. I'm sure CS grads are delighted...

Humans just want to be able to work and feed their families. Notice how this is something that is never addressed for example in Asimov's writings where robots do everything. How do people do anything to be able to afford these robots? How do Solarians make money to maintain their massively gigantic estates? It is never explained, but we always jump straight to the "robots do everything, everything is free, nobody works". How about the in between?

If anything one wants to make is now possible to make, how is anyone supposed to make a living?

Can I make food with LLMs? Can I build a house and make clothes? This is stupid. No real wealth is being created for the general population here.

I noticed the same thing. Another thing that seems to have disappear: lunch and learn focusing on the tech stack. And I mean specifically about "how to do this in <programming language", not product/company focused.

SO's downfall started way before AI. A decade or so ago it was always full of interesting questions, people were giving detailed answers, there was sometimes some debate in the answers, etc

And then it started being stupid questions. People who clearly had barely tried anything and just rushed to SO with a half baked question. Answers were just pointing to another thread that already provided the answer. It definitely started before LLMs. I think it lined up with the aggressive "learn-to-code" push.

The logo for the Brazilian Institute of Oriental Studies is a masterpiece :-)

A process is significantly more expensive than a thread on a Linux system. The main cost is memory. Processes own their memory which forces the system to duplicate resources, as opposed to threads that are able to share resources.

Where have you red that "the cost between a process and a thread is relatively small."? I would be curious to see a link because the most cursory internet search would show you that it is not true.

There are studies explaining the appeal of the "chore simulators". You should look them up because I may not do them justice, but in a nutshell it's basically that they are very satisfactory because they present clear rules, they allow you to "do a job" and if you do it well, you progress. There are no tricks, no unexpected crisis, you do the thing, you get money, you get better gear, you do the thing better. This is escapism for people frustrated with "real life". Real life sucks. Sometimes you work hard and you still don't get "better gear".

Driving simulations - be it planes, cars, trucks, boats, etc - are maybe a bit different, but essentially it's just a combination of chill vibe, romanticized experience (the classic "I wish I could be a farmer", no you don't) and a degree of what I described above. Obviously there are also people who are just passionate about trains, planes and such.

The chill cozy games are a real trend, and it's due to what I described in the 1st paragraph.

"I could enjoy", "How it'd entertain me" - have you even tried a few?

You don't magically get language skills by living in the country. You still have to put in the time and effort.

Did I say otherwise? How do you live 6 years in a country without putting in the effort to learn the language? You're there, watch TV, talk to people, read books, take a class here or there. Come on, how do you put yourself, for 6 years, in a situation where you don't learn the language?

How do you live 6 years in a country without reaching B1?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I would get call for a quick chat with HR if I walked around the office with Mein Kampf under my arm as well.

Schools, prisons, etc are institutions that can decide what is appropriate for their audience and how they want to spend their shelf space. A real banned book is a book that gets you in legal trouble if you're caught with it.

The irony of discussing the "new meaning" of a word on a thread about books/bookstore. Then say "canceled".

And there are always people who think they are clever by saying that a library deciding to not have a book on their shelves means the book is BANNED. OK, it's banned in that library, so what? This is not the government sending you to prison if they find you with this book in your pocket, it's a library deciding to use the shelf space for something else and thinking the book is not appropriate for their target audience.

In some cases, the author has paid for their words with their life.”

Are there examples of these?

The few examples mentioned in the article are easy to buy, at least in the US. Is there a full manifest somewhere?

How is it not safer to have access to information and be able to contact people from your remote location?

Does it make you absolutely 100% safe? No. Does it suddenly nullify any potential risky scenario? No. But it is pretty idiotic to say that it doesn't change the risk. It very clearly changes the risk and reduces it drastically.

Oh I think I understand the source of the confusion: you think that whoever is in the White House makes the decisions, I don't. I know: "ooh conspiracy theory blaba!" yeah. The thing is I think people who've been in place for 20/30 years in core power positions actually have more power than people who are elected and replaced every 4 to 5 years.

ACA didn't happen because of Obama for example.

"We wouldn't have attacked Iran" How do you back that up with data? The US have been swamped in that part of the world for decades and decades, it didn't start with Trump.

As of today, the EU has not done anything concrete and real to be more military independent. Yes they have created "institutions" and "programs" and enacted "regulatory changes" (things they love to do in Europe), but concretely their military capabilities have not moved at all. These are just the thing the EU has been doing for a long time with never any result.

Again, do you have actual data to predict what the US position vis a vis Taiwan/China would be with a different administration?

What I will give you is that yes, Trump is way more disruptive than the previous tag team game the blues and the reds were playing before. I still don't think it will change much. Trump has not done anything truly radical.

Absolutely false. 25 years ago people were absolutely bullish about what was ahead. I wasn't around in the 70s but data suggests that people were indeed happier than in the recent decades despite inflation and political issues. As for the 1920s, if we only look at America people were on a freaking cloud after the end of WW1: cars, radios, massive economic boost after the end of the war.

Yeah there was poverty, and social issues and blabla, but we're talking average and trends here.

This reads like it was written by someone visiting from a completely different timeline...

If there's one thing we can be sure about it's that people starving in Africa are not starving because an American got themselves a new lawn mower. This type of discourse may have worked 30 years ago, but not anymore.

You're being fooled by the public platforms and the communication stunts. Yes the world stage would be pretty much the same with a different administration.

The parties are basically lighting rods at this point. They claim that they're for this or against that, they would do this, we should do that, and if only we... blablabla. But in the end, nothing concrete ever changes. Sure there are adjustments here or there that quickly get canceled by the next administration, but nothing systemic is ever really changing.

The title and the description ask two different questions.

I do not think people are optimistic about the future. Back in the late 90's/early 2000s yes, people were very optimistic. Everyone was so thrilled to get to the 21st century. Now, people seem clinically depressed, technology is no longer something designed to make you happy, or make your life easier. It is just a battle to control your attention and sell you garbage.

Will people be happier in the future? Honestly I don't know. Anyone can "decide" to be happy to some degree. As a large group/society, no I don't think people will be happy.

First link was written by an intern, let's be serious. The second seems to have more legitimacy, ok, so we have this one guy, but the article is very weak. He doubts that tactical nuclear weapons would help control escalation. OK. I don't think that's the center of the argument here. I also think using tactical nukes would lead to escalation, so what? Doesn't change the fact that tactical and strategic nukes are different things.

Who are these "scholars" exactly? The only reference I could find is Jim Mattis, and the context was very specific when he said that.

Furthermore, this is a "what if" scenario since tactical nukes have never been used. Of course it would make escalation likely during an open conflict, so what? Doesn't change the fact that there is a material difference between a tactical nuke and a strategic one.

Nuclear vs conventional and tactical vs strategic are 2 very different things. There absolutely are tactical nuclear bombs.

OK, so I'm right. They are specifically talking about the contribution to the EU budget that would remain at home. They did not talk about the economy as a whole. There is no "heavily implied".

Other replies are hilarious, focusing on "muh! The BUS!!!". I don't care about the bus, I'm focusing on the broader point. "The economy" was never at the forefront of the arguments put forward by Leave.