wewtyflakes

On-point surveillance by people would be a good start; I do not see why it needs to start with endless surveillance by machines run by a private company.

A society glued together with cameras rather than people, is shallow.

The fact that Scott Wiener made that carve out for restaurants via emergency legislation (SB 1524) made my blood boil and I vowed to vote against him in any election is runs in.

Looks like to be riding a bike that uses car wheels with thick hubcaps.

Great to hear about full-duplex. When using voice mode historically, it was infuriating to have the AI go on a long-winded rant or explanation and I would be shouting again and again "stop. shut up. shut up! shut up!!!"; I just needed a clean way to interrupt it.

Worked for me; it was a nice surprise.

If democracy does not work, the consequences for that are broader than considering the pros/cons of data centers.

If you go in with the assumption that democracy does not work, then there is also no point in protesting, as being angry about datacenters would mean nothing anyway.

I feel that the resentment to be short sighted. Datacenters do not vote, but people do. If a datacenter is in a locale, it gives those voters a de-facto, outsized, soft power.

The companies that make these TVs love that we are this point since they can now take away the subsidy, and you also coincidentally now have no option to buy a non-smart TV, so they are now collecting $ from both the purchase and from the ads. Tada! Grossness all around.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-warren-buffett-ca...

Fine by me.

I do not understand what you mean by "overcorrecting WAY too far". I have not posited anything aside from wealth disparity existing and that the wealthy do not have a tendency to just give money to the government for the fun of it. If they are paying most the taxes, it is because they have most of the money. Seems self-evident to me.

That is a strawman argument. Nobody is seriously arguing to take all the money. I called out extreme wealth disparity, and implied it was a problem. You can disagree at the latter, but you cannot disagree with the former.

This is a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government.

This sounds like the worst case outcome for society; real estate permanently allotted to some entity that chooses not to use it. It is not an envious model; it is a model that should be eliminated.

Update: Things trended significantly worse for me over the day, to the point where I no longer trust the code being generated; I ended up reverting to Opus.

They presumably know their wife better than you do, internet stranger. They did not hide that they were talking from their experience, and not from a published paper on Uber statistics.

That would be lovely; I want to live in the world you think we live in.

I have found Fable is good for doing code failure diagnoses but lackluster at its corresponding remediation. Have been going back and forth with it all this morning about its half-thought-out point-solutions.

I know you are a bad-faith bot account, so this is not posed to you.

I am wondering why there are so many of these accounts popping up. They seemingly only exist to antagonize. What do their operators get out of that?

Pile on enough assumptions and qualifiers and then suddenly everything is so easy

How does 100M tons of platinum safely deorbit? Is the idea to let it crash into the sea?

That strategy would be a taxable event.

Aristocratified?

Extra trots, you mean.

Much of what you mention in your post seemed spammy; messaging regarding cart abandonment, etc. I aggressively label messages like that as spam, and I suspect others do too. I also suspect after blasting out messages like that, your accounts will get burned.

I think it is safe to say that those brains are having a blast

How could you possibly say that? You are positing that the brains are both conscious and happy. Both of those are leaps.

It just invokes a strong emotional response because it's so "abnormal"

You are making an assumption about why people find this horrifying, and the assumption you made was uncharitable.

OTOH, this is HN, I guess. Having empathy for real people would be harmful to the business model of most people's employers.

I do not see how people on HN being horrified by human brain experiments means they do not have empathy.

I was not making a pun, though the terms of art in that area were clearly made to be puns. I was pointing out that the byte-size of a CPU is typically defined as its smallest addressable unit, so, I was confused to see a CPU using an architecture that works with half of that size; it does not make sense to me.

If the CPU is nibble-oriented, wouldn't that mean that that is its byte size?