ratelimitsteve

Still an opportunity to edit his wiki if anyone wants to be the official Bear of Bad News(tm)

they'll just build it somewhere else

what seems to be happening in practice is that the companies building these data centers will just take you to court over the limits being illegal and make that fight cost more than the town's entire annual budget, thus inducing the town to give up.

and you like doing that something

I think your attempt at a counterpoint accidentally reinforced the main point: there are more criteria beyond simply being able to do something well that determine whether it's a good idea in the first place. I can make lead balloons faster and cheaper than anyone else but that's not enough to make it worth spending my one and only life making lead balloons.

in Pittsburgh the local government tied RTO to RE valuations for the entire city by way of offering tax benefits to large employers for pushing RTO. I won't debate you on middle managers wanting power, the two aren't mutually exclusive. But WFH costs business districts a ton of money and that pressure isn't just being absorbed. Cities offer employers subsidies in exchange for RTO and get their money back in collecting taxes on parking, lunches, rideshares, after work drinks, quick shopping on the way home and all the other costs that employees bear. It's a direct wealth transfer from the working class to local governments, which then pass some of that wealth onto the business owners.

1) borrow the stock

2) sell it

3) rebuy it at the lower price (assuming you're right)

4) give it back to whomever you borrowed it from plus a consideration for letting you hold what's theirs for a bit

Whatever's left after you return the stock and pay the interest is your profit, which comes from the people who bought it from you in step 2. If you're wrong, and the price goes up, you have to replace the stock you borrowed at a higher price than you got for it and that's your loss (which could potentially be infinite, as opposed to long positions where you can only lose what you initially invested)

Assuming linear change. 5 yard penalty, repeat the down.

There are plenty of positive responses, yours got downvoted for being essentially a series tautologies. "Do something that fixes the problem" isn't advice, and "have AI do something that fixes the problem" is actually directly harmful to the end goal.

my whole state right now is under an air quality advisory that is quite literally off the scale bad. breathing outdoors is currently considered "harmful to everyone" per the advisory and simply going somewhere outside your home requires an N95 mask (https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-code-purple-air-qu...).

a billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up

This all feels like it was designed to artificially inject cash into xAI despite the average person being strongly against it. First they merge that company with SpaceX despite having very little in common in either of their infrastructure or goals, then they change the rules to get the stock out to the general public as quickly as possible on the promise that obviously it's going to explode in value and make everyone very rich to justify that decision, then once they have investor cash in-hand the stock price slips. I think they just tried to leverage SpaceX's relatively popular, positive image into investments into xAI by more or less giving up on SpaceX being anything but a wrapper around xAI.

that's my kids. i'm from usenet.

it's just a generic dismissal, a way of putting someone in a box without actually engaging with anything they say. which lumps it in with 90% of all internet arguments really. "Your argument must be invalid because you're the type of person whose arguments are invalid."

my account is 11 months old, which invalidates your theory that i'm part of some recent influx. also is septemberism still a thing? i thought that went away when most people had home internet rather than getting it through a university.

Crony capitalism is true capitalism. The idea that capitalists will simply choose not to organize to benefit their own positions out of some sense of altruism is insanely naive, and puts you in the same camp as USSR apologists claiming that their issue was the lack of true communism. A system that fails when people subvert it to their own benefit is a system that fails.

Turns out all the rules of our society are "hard limits unless someone with a lot of money disagrees at which point they become negotiable".

Sorta invalidates the whole market to know that they'll change the rules in order to manufacture the result that they have pre-ordained to be "correct". NASDAQ seems to have decided that they're in the business of picking winners and losers rather than simply providing people the mechanisms by which to decide for themselves.

any competent engineer would only rely on the system time of a system within their control. all the decision-making would happen server side.

As part of the solution to the hard problem of food: distribution.

PARTTS - post-apocalyptic real time transport simulator

basically logistics and fleet management for a trucking company that does cargo and passengers, set in a zombie outbreak with events that can happen during a job that affect the outcome. This all happens in real-time, the length of a job is calculated based on the distance between the departure and destination points and soon drivers needing rest will be a factor. I'm a big fan of microgames/timed games where rather than sitting down for a play session the gameplay loop involves just occasionally checking up on the status of some things that are happening in the background

rotation and orbit, and technically the eccentricity in the axis as well

TOO FAR!

people have been burning investor money for heat in re: AI for a few years now and it's starting to get chilly...

it's based on age and I think that the age verification it would require is pretty universally reviled, at least here on HN

afaic you should be allowed to inject motor oil into your titties w a bike pump if you're capable of giving consent and it's something you want for yourself. for me the real issue is that there's already distrust around organ donation and things like that because "they'll just let you die so they can use your parts" and I feel like introducing a profit motive to the donation procedure strengthens that argument whether there is actually any more malfeasance or not. Simply increasing the number of people who benefit from it and the ways in which they might benefit makes it seem like there's more motivation to let patients die.

https://archive.is/ji4Zp

there's a difference between being a good and loyal fascist and being in with the fascists. you've actually hit on it. those valuable, productive and loyal nazis were allowed to do whatever they wanted without regard to the law when that benefited the party, then that same behavior that was legal and encouraged was what got them kidnapped and murdered by the party as soon as the winds shifted. The core belief of fascism is two-fold: selling someone down the river because you can and believing that either through compliance or raw power you'll never be the one sold down the river.

you are factually correct but realistically the office of the president cannot ask for anything without pressure, by nature of being the office of the president

Free market solutions, by definition, exclude external interference. Subsidies, by definition, are market interference by an external actor.

I mean, anyone can fail to deliver their end of any agreement. They may have learned a harsh lesson about bargaining with Trump, but that doesn't mean that it was dumb to pursue the deal as negotiated or would be dumb to pursue a similar deal with someone who might actually follow through on it.

that and directing US dollars into crypto markets via the government. you can sell people on the idea with the same arguments that are currently moderately successful in convincing people to do things like buy gold as a retirement plan, and anyone who is holding crypto before the government "invests" in it will see incredible returns as demand spikes for an asset whose supply is intentionally capped. The crypto whales are suddenly in the presence of a crypto leviathan in the form of government spending, they not only make a ton of money but they can sell out without crashing the market (solving a huge problem, esp for shitcoin whales but realistically for major stakeholders in all crypto) and everyone who's actually involved in the decision-making process leaves with fistfuls of money from people who didn't meaningfully have a say in which bag they'd be purchasing or at what price.