throwway120385

Another fun fact is that it was impossible to deduce from any of Ben Franklin's experiments what material was transferred and what material remained in place to give rise to "charge" as we think of it. So he picked a convention that we've continued to use even after we learned that his negative charges were the material that gets transferred by friction.

Nvidia's software support remains "best in class" so they've become the default for a lot of this stuff. To overcome that I think you'd have to get a lot of hobbyists and by extension interested young people using your hardware instead of Nvidia. So you'd have to have good software support, decent hardware, and low hardware cost. People started with Nvidia because most machines had an Nvidia card in them, and Nvidia's software support was carried-over momentum from how they've supported their GPUs with PC gaming. I've tried AMD, for example, and the compatibility matrices and bugs and just general lacking software support for ML on their hardware makes it a total non-starter. It may be a lot better with current-generation stuff but it's going to take a lot for me to trust AMD for ML.

I'm more excited about the future partnership between Oscar Meyer and Intel. Behold the future of meat.

What's different is that the period tracker apps have women provide that information pretty directly. The data broker probably had to do a lot of work and then estimate with a confidence level. So there's a significant difference in level of effort there, and then because of the estimate the data becomes much less valuable because it's only plausible it's not certain.

This argument gets trotted out whenever people talk about privacy and protection of personal information. I hear it when people discuss LPR systems, cameras, and the like too.

These data-gathering applications of technology should be treated specially because they make it extremely easy to gather high-confidence data about individuals. I bet your data broker couldn't predict when someone was ovulating or whether they were pregnant or count how many miscarriages they had just based on purchase history? This is all data that period tracker apps capture pretty directly. The miscarriages one is particularly bad because that data could be misconstrued as abortion and in US states where that's illegal it could get you into real trouble. There's a small but vocal subset of the population that seems to want to punish women for anything other than a healthy delivery. But when my spouse and I were trying everyone we talked to had at least one if not more miscarriage stories.

Does it generate the same extremely fat binaries? I've seen Go binaries get into hundreds of megabytes for things you could do with C/C++ with a few megabytes. Most of it seemed to be string tables and other things that could be reduced but not eliminated with compression.

My truck will actually play MP3s off of a data CD. Maybe I should try that.

We really need to finish the Gollop Chamber.

I'd be okay with those if they were geofenced to be quiet in a 6 mile radius from my current GPS coordinates.

My midlife crisis car is a Mercedes Sprinter.

I wouldn't tolerate being "inconvenienced" by someone's broken sewer pipe I'd ask them to fix it.

I don't think anyone objects to modding your street legal car to go 0-100 in 3 seconds as long as you're not interrupting every conversation for a quarter mile in any direction wherever you drive. But everywhere I go, no matter what I'm doing, someone's exhaust mod is there to make sure I can't finish my sentences or listen to my son, and I'm sick of it.

If I called the county every time someone drove past my house with a loud modded exhaust it would consume my days and nights. The loud exhaust people are a scourge and I would love an easy way to get them to stop.

IME you have to be true to what you predict. Whether you're predictably growing, predictably shrinking, or predictably flat if you blow your prediction that's when people start to worry that you don't know what you're doing.

The major egg supplier for most of the grocery stores decided not to buy as many pullets to replace the ones they culled from Avian Flu, and then the second and third largest also followed suit. As a result there was a bug supply crunch that coincided with Avian Flu cullings. Unless Biden was there making command decisions about how many pullets to buy that year he had nothing to do with it.

In my experience, insurance issues are usually insurer and patient going back and forth and then patient getting 6 different answers from 6 different representatives, then reviewing the 3000 page plan document, finding the single line that properly describes what should have happened, calling the insurance company, explaining to the rep how your plan works, and demanding that it be reprocessed. Like my wife has to do this frequently and spends several hours per month dealing with this but she has saved us probably tens of thousands of dollars in mis-processed claims that the insurance companies can't even properly handle. I usually am the person carefully reading plan docs, finding the proper billing codes, and explaining things like that to the insurance company. Sometimes we have to get the doctor's billing people to code things, like once they coded something that was an outpatient appointment as a minor surgery which could have cost us a lot of money.

So in my book since we get to speculate about what the system should look like, it should absolutely result in people getting care without all of this run-around. It's about eliminating as much misery as possible from the system and letting people just get treated and providers just get paid. We can talk about efficiency once the misery is gone.

Even cash subsidies can be a kind of chain. Why wouldn't we just subsidize the whole thing for everyone then? And if the purpose of a health insurance plan is to collect groups of people into "risk pools," then why wouldn't we just put everyone in a global risk pool? And if the purpose of a health insurance plan is to negotiate rates on behalf of a bunch of people, why wouldn't we have someone like CMS determine those rates? And if the purpose of a health insurance plan is to make sure everyone has health care, why would we create a system where people are excluded by means-testing?

Why wouldn't a single-payer solution work? The margin that the insurance companies take for themselves seems like a good place to start. From there it would spiral out to the third to half of time that all of the clinical staff spend just dealing with insurance issues and insurance billing.

For example, if you're sitting in your living room with a bunch of other people, many of whom know each other, and two people start fighting, you are all witnessing a crime and you can also all identify the two people fighting. It would be ridiculous to require DNA evidence in that situation.

It never priced flexibly because the company that makes it kept a total stranglehold on the IP through patents and basically requires you to buy both the panel and the controller from them. I think it's actually quite a simple technology but I think it's tough for them to get the economies of scale they really need to be competitive as a display technology. I'm starting to see the older-style black and white eInk displays used as Electronic Shelf Labels more often now and I think it has to do with the patents finally expiring so you can buy the components from more than one supplier. The technology they're replacing, paper labels, costs thousands of dollars per week per store to update and more so when there are sale prices. The eInk displays cut most of those costs in favor of capital and then once in a blue moon battery replacements.

The value of employee equity is approximately zero, but sometimes people get lucky. Don't let these arguments fool you into thinking you're definitely in that 5%, because in the absence of information about the market, the product, and the other people you're working with you're probably in that 95% that makes nothing. By all means update your priors but arguments about expected value assume that all things are equal, and they are manifestly not equal.

Even if they somehow imagine themselves as philanthropists or minimalists, they tend to put off giving away too much too soon under the rationale that they'll be able to eventually share more if they hold out and use it more practically.

What you're describing sounds exactly like Effective Altruism. The issue is that the expected value of an act that happens at an unspecified time in the future is zero.

Family apartments could be really desirable, but nobody builds them because of the building codes so people don't look for them. The point that a single-family home costs 1.5 million dollars is very applicable here, as the monthly payment on that loan is cripplingly expensive or totally out of reach. A 4-bedroom apartment for a family of 4 would be extremely desirable in that market.

Or that time that we parked an army on the Rio Grande because a bunch of people from the US decided to settle in the Mexican territory of Texas? That was a whole thing and the President of the US at the time, James K. Polk, ran on a platform of "Manifest Destiny" -- that the US should span "from sea to shining sea." There were a whole host of other countries with interest in that territory, not to mention the Indian tribes who would be displaced by that policy. The US has had a lot of dark periods in our history, and we shouldn't let those periods displace us from the moral certainty we derive from the Declaration of Independence and things like The Bill of Rights.

Yeah here's an example of an autonomous tractor: https://www.agxeed.com/. You buy this and program it with what you're going to do. Right now you still have to keep it fed with seed, and I think you have to run spray and some of the other equipment manually. But the more sophisticated this stuff gets the more we're going to see "robofarms." If you can have a tractor, sprayer, and combine that can be assigned self-contained tasks within a field, then you can have an LLM manage those systems by feeding them self-contained tasks. You could intermediate by having the LLM provide you with a "task list" in whatever control environment that equipment uses and then validate that the task list is correct with correct settings and boundaries. But I think technologically we're within striking distance of this today.

I believe that's covered under MIL-SPEC-M00-BAAA

That can be true in some cases, for sure. For example we probably don't want government-run fast food or government-run rental cars because of that "race to the bottom" you're citing. But there are also things where that 20% margin actually makes it more expensive. Managing utility poles and electrical infrastructure is a pretty good example. There's a strong public interest in having poles and electrical wiring in every house, and so a government monopoly is probably good. You're not going to have more than one electrical system in an area, and if you did it would substantially increase cost of delivery. Roads are another good example -- you're not going to find yourself in possession of more than one driveway to your house and pay differing prices for different driveways. You could also argue that things like healthcare, education, and maintenance of shared public spaces is also something we should probably do through government because consolidated physical infrastructure allows us to substantially reduce the cost to the taxpayer versus what they will pay out of pocket when these things are privatized, and you can experience those costs when you use for-profit public spaces like indoor play parks and such. And then the elimination of that profit motive absolutely does reduce costs even further. There are examples of this you can look at where IE emergency services are privatized and they immediately get more expensive for everyone and with less actual service provided.

I think it will greatly benefit politics in the US to stop looking at this tension between government services and private services as all or nothing and start thinking about what is most beneficial to the public economically.

I always thought raw, unchecked Capitalism sucked. I've thought that my whole life. "Welcome to the asylum" and all that.

Next you'll tell me that doing something at cost as a public service is somehow better than getting the same thing but with a 20% margin tacked on for the shareholders.

Assuming a good enough LLM, you can say something like "Please find me a site with optimum growing conditions for beetroot in the next year and arrange to have the field planted and maintained until the harvest season for beetroot is over" and then just let 'er rip.

What's crazy about that is it's essentially post-scarcity if we want it to be. Or what's most likely to happen is that in the US we'll all be sucking down water laced with contraceptives in terrafoam while our corporate masters wait for us to die off so they can inherit all of the land.

If you've ever walked up to your neighbor and politely asked them to do or not do something then by that logic you're putting yourself at immense physical risk. I think the vast majority of people, even gun owners, are generally civil and don't wish other people harm.