thegrim33

Were people not able to accomplish that transition in the times before AI existed?

Do you not think that taking doses of literal amphetamines on a daily basis might be more associated with your complaints than consuming caffeine?

aka this very thread - top comment and most of the entire comment section has been taken over by literally "how dare anyone say anything even remotely negative about China, what's wrong with you".

Scroll the front page. Find literally any story that has to do with a major US tech company. Open the comment section. Look at the the top comment. It will be negative. Most of the other top comments as well. Trying to gaslight us into not believing our own eyes ..

> The suggestion that this is a CCP play shows a lack of theory of mind.

As if destruction / denigration of US AI / cloud / IT infrastructure wouldn't massively benefit the CCP. Surely there's no correlation there at all, just means, motive, and opportunity, but I'm sure it's nothing.

That some people buy them and don't really need them has zero relevance on whether any people have need for them.

"Key funding agencies include USAID, SIDA, the World Bank, WHO, IFAD, and GiveWell."

So its backed by an as NGO as NGO can get, swampy as swamp can get, USAID funded, world meddling, money funneling, organization.

> Chooses to live in one of the highest cost of living, most expensive areas in the entire country

> Complains that groceries are expensive

So, you feel the same about stuff like the GDPR then, right?

The absolute worst case is that it's not advantageous/useful at all in the next war to have the capability, but it wouldn't harm you at all if you do have it, it just wouldn't be useful. In every other case, from the worst case all the way up the continuum to the best case, having the capability is beneficial to varying levels of degree.

Related - any time a study is based on gathering the opinions of a random subset of the population, I also instantly dismiss it. The average person is a moron. I don't care about random people's subjective opinions, I only care about objective data. People polled in the 16th century would have said the sun orbits the earth; that doesn't make it true.

Anyone with 60 seconds of free time can trivially see that your claims hold no water.

Simply Google for cities/areas with declining population, choose one, look up average housing prices there over the last 10 years or so, see how they've changed, correct the figures for inflation, and you'll see that in almost all cases inflation-adjusted prices are lower today in those places than they were 10 years ago.

Well there's right ways to do them, where you replace all the weak components with properly strengthened components, and geometry fixing components, and then there's the wrong way to do them, which is what 99% of people do, where they just do a cheap lift, without upgrading the other components, and eventually it fails.

Probably the primary reason why vehicles like Jeeps get a bad reputation - they're incredibly commonly modded, and incredibly horribly/improperly modded, and the vehicle gets the blame when the mods fail, rather than the horrible things the owner did to them.

Don't forget when it comes to things like this - if in this case IBM ever had an astoundingly good day, CNN would never write an article about it, and you'd never see it on HN. They choose the picture of reality to install in the reader's minds by selectively choosing what news to report on vs. what to ignore.

Yup. Any time you see weasel words, especially this one, whether it's in advertisements, product descriptions, wherever, you can instantly dismiss the product/claim. It's such a quick and easy tell to notice.

Because as we all know, even if a claim holds in 99.999% of cases, all you have to do is point out the 0.001% extreme outlier cases where it didn't hold true, to completely invalidate the entire claim.

Spoiler: The plan is .. add massive regulation, but only to the US, don't affect other countries developing it in any way other than "setting a good standard that'll hopefully influence them". Seems like an airtight plan.

Yup. 20% of the population will look at the graph and scream about how we're all doomed and need to start executing people / nuking countries to fix it (seriously, comments from this very thread), 20% of the population will look at the graph and see the hilariously short timeframe, the carefully manipulated axes ranging, and instantly dismiss it as extremist climate doomer insanity and close out of it, and the remaining 60% of the population doesn't care one way or the other.

They chose to add the word "guzzle". They could have just written "Irish datacenters now use 23% of the country's electricity". But they made the editorial decision to add in "guzzle". What's the word for this type of propaganda, where they add in some sort of adjective that wasn't needed, in order to prime the reader on how to think/feel, rather than just objectively reporting the facts? What are the odds that the content of the article is objective and factual, given the decisions they made with the headline?

"This new tool allows for writing all this code ..... but every person and company, in unison, in a grand conspiracy, all decided to only write private software with it that they aren't releasing to the public in any way"

Seems reasonable

This article is pretty much a textbook example for me of what took me a long time to realize - even objectively intelligent people are still very easily brainwashed. Especially with regards to political/social issues. Maybe increased intelligence provides some modicum of resistance to it, but the resistance doesn't seem to be very much, if any.

The article started out interesting but quickly divulged into extremist / as far to one end of the political spectrum as you can go viewpoints, combined with an "I'm smarter than everyone and there's no way I'm wrong and only my viewpoints are true" nonsense. Was hard to get much further.

Capitalism, in particular NASA's commercial space development program, have already provided and demonstrated initial asteroid redirect capability via the DART mission launched by SpaceX, which impacted an asteroid and measured the changes to its trajectory.

They gave a ~2 year timeframe for their predictions in this one (tied to the next presidential election), so in 2 years when none of this has happened will they then switch over to a new AI 2044 Plan? Where's the accountability? Where's the followup or retrospective? What if there was some mechanism that branded these people so that when they made claims in the future people could clearly see the authors labeled as "made completely wrong fantastical claims in the past"?

It's so interesting. We all now that in X months from now the propaganda campaigns will switch to the new hot topic and we'll never hear about data centers or their "water usage" ever again. In X months from now everyone will deny that it was a thing or that anyone cared about it. People will forget that it was ever even a discussion. Everyone will just be switched over onto whatever the latest and greatest propaganda campaign is, at the drop of a hat, with zero reflection. Wonder if there's a way to graph it, something like google trends, but over social media, to chart whether there's a specific day/week that all discussion about it just ends.

Well yeah, that's the point. They want to enshitify cars and make driving as expensive and as annoying as possible to force people out of cars. They know they can't just ban cars outright, so they enshitify this little thing this year, mandate this other thing the next year, add a new tax/fee the next year, add a new restriction the next year, reduce speed limits the next year, etc., etc., all in the name of safety / "save the kids", until decades later they finally get to where they want to be.

From their profile, this person makes a living selling AI programming products, by the way. Who could have guessed. There's a pattern to be noticed, even.

It makes sense, but it's probably pretty far down on the list of "what could we put money towards in order to increase birthrate". Could probably get a lot more result for the money by funding efforts to pair people together, make them want to have kids, make them more financially equipped to have kids, etc.

Looking at the long list of the things you had to do to get this working .. and you couldn't "find" the energy to write some text for the landing page yourself? For a project you want people to buy from you? You supposedly put in all that effort, and built these sites around it, and building a business around it, and you couldn't deal with writing descriptions of it yourself? Seriously?

Half the traffic on this site are real, intelligent humans (among whom opinion is split different ways on the AI topic), a quarter of the traffic is propagandists trying to destroy western tech/infrastructure/society (notice how China apparently doesn't have to stop AI development or datacenter development, only the West does), and the remaining quarter is real humans who have been utterly consumed by the previously mentioned propagandists and are parroting the same messaging.

Do you really think these companies are spending billions of dollars on such systems without doing any research as to whether a market for it exists?

"Starlink is SpaceX's primary revenue driver, generating $11.39 billion in 2025 and accounting for roughly 61% of the company's total sales. The satellite connectivity unit is the only highly profitable division of the company, generating an operating income of $4.42 billion"