windowpains

I’ve always defaulted to no.

I wonder if a similar thing makes managers dumb. As a manager, you have people doing work you oversee, a very similar dynamic to using an AI assistant. Sometimes the AI/subordinate makes a mistake, so you have to watch for that, but for the most part they can be trusted.

If that’s true, then maybe we could leverage what we know about good management of human subordinates and apply it to AI interaction, and vice versa.

This is a lot of it. Urban liberals see rural working class as backward and racist and uncultured. Just having a non-coastal accent (eg southerners) is treated as a marker of low character in our media. I recall how GW Bush’s accent was treated, as do many rural voters. Look at the discussion here, it’s about “those people” being too dumb to vote for their own interests. Unsurprisingly, people resent that.

If only we built reservoirs to keep the water for the drought years it would be great news.

I worry more about Indian scammers than Chinese scammers, not that Chinese are more moral but so many Indians work in call centers already it’s extremely difficult to tell which ones are not scammers.

Turns out, Putin was a genius after all. And maybe the optics of Gaza wasn’t helpful either, that seemed to be the moment Macron et al finally turned against the west.

Someone here probably works for Alex Karp and can give us the low down. I’d imagine it’s a virtual clone of some sort which can be put into simulated environments and observed.

You say “a CEO” like it’s just a fungible human unit. In reality, a CEO is much much more valuable than a median human. Think of how many shareholders are impacted, many little old grey haired grannies, dependent on their investments for food, shelter and medical expenses. When you think of the fuller context, surely you see how sociopathic it is to shrug at the killing of a CEO, let alone a CEO of a major corporation. Or maybe sociopathy is the norm these days, for the heavily online guys.

Can’t they just watch everyone? I mean too much data is only a problem until you have AI.

We also pay the counter tariffs. As Americans, we basically pay for everything, even for other Americans. I read Modi was going to tariff lentils at 30%, idk for Putin’s oil or something (?), didn’t really read it closely since it could be an AI fake anyway. Pretty sure my lentil costs will skyrocket as a result. It’s tough being the global leader.

The best thing these countries could do would be to increase military spending to protect against Trump (and actual enemies like Putin whom they’ve enabled by their idiotic energy deals and “not my problem” approach to defense spending). I doubt they will, so US will get Greenland ceteris paribus.

The cold weather there may be a great way to prepare for the assault on Greenland. (Mostly joking :)

The non-sequiter conclusion you make will hopefully make others dismiss your post, as they should. You have normal cholesterol, the atherogenic hypothesis applies to those with high ldl, or more precisely high apo b. The bmj editorial you link hints that ldl alone may not be a good reason to prescribe statins, but the alternative is not to ignore cholesterol but to consider other factors like CAC. You also seem to not grasp the limited value of anecdotal information, and don’t say how much of your diet is saturated fat. A high fat diet from olive oil is different than a high fat diet from butter.

I remember how popular the Yugo was, and then the Geo metro. Nobody wants good cars, they want cheap transportation.

Let me tell you about real life. I’m a caregiver and leaving the home is simply not an option. Short trips to the store, a walk around the block, maybe, if it’s before sundown, provided the person I’m caring for is in the right mental state to be left alone for 45 minutes. If there were neighborhood pubs that might be a thing to do if I drank. Getting off social media is great for those lucky enough to have the option, but with an increasing number of people getting into their dementia years, many with no savings to afford respite or other forms of care, social media is going to be the only option for a lot of people like myself. It’s better than nothing.

Despite everything we now know about Wikipedia, I still think it’s one of the better websites of the early 00s.

I doubt the downvotes are political. This is hn after all.

That line on the chart labeled “profit” is really going to go up now!

In the 90s you’d get flamed on Usenet for posting pseudo-anonymously. Even in early 00’s sites like /. Carried that forward with “anonymous coward” iirc.

Always give the benefit of doubt. Perhaps him acting aggressively and blocking you was a misunderstood attempt at humor. A lot of comments I make online are tongue in cheek but people take everything very seriously. Adding emojis doesn’t solve that problem and can even make it worse. It’s really impossible to know for certain. Online communication is totally different from the real world where feedback is instantaneous. Better to assume good intent, even when there’s a very high likelihood of being wrong. If nothing else it’s better for you to err towards rose colored glasses.

He was from a kinder more tolerant time, when people thought being non-anonymous online was safe. Sort of the same problem that others from his generation, Julian Assange, many others had. But I wonder if time won’t prove these people right. If you do put yourself out there you make enemies and open yourself to the hatred on many psycho basement dwellers. But if you don’t the world never knows you. All if that is too many words to say there’s a price to be paid for fame. Anyway, Dilbert was an important part of our cultural landscape and made a lot of people feel good despite the pains of cubicle life. To make people smile and feel better, that’s a pretty great achievement after all. Rip Scott, hopefully you’ll be making many folks smile in the afterlife too.

I like jpow so I’m biased for sure. But when I zoom out, I think the thing some people are missing is the arbitrage aspect. With US politics, we typically get a choice between two people. Often it’s a choice between the lesser evil. Many of Trumps voters were not people who liked Trump, but people who were horrified by Kamala. This means Trump can arbitrage that gap, and do all sorts of disagreeable things as long as he remains the lesser evil to his voters, those disagreeable acts will be ignored come election time. Many Trump voters will be aghast at him weaponizing the courts to chip away at the independence of the fed, but they’ll vote for him and his preferred candidates because they feel the alternative is even worse.

The important implication is that resistance or countering with extremism in the other direction only makes him stronger. To defeat Trump the left will need to move closer to the middle so he has less room for that kind of political arbitrage. Alas emotion seems to be in greater supply than strategic thinking so probably things will get worse before they get better.

The EFF, FOSS, Stallman, Barlow, so many things seem childish or naive now, but not back then. Maybe it’s just me. I wish I could go back.