Yeah, I personally believe women's longer lifespan mostly stems from a lower caloric intake. Studies have long suggested that reducing caloric intake can be one of the best things you can do for health and extending lifespan. And this has been shown true across many species including: yeast, worms, flies, mice, monkeys, fish, and others.
We also observe that larger animals tend to live longer than smaller animals, but intra-species it tends to be the opposite (e.g. small dogs tend to live slightly longer than large dogs). It also makes some sense biologically speaking, as we now know that most genetic mutations and errors happen during cellular reproduction when DNA is copied, and cellular reproduction rates correlate with nutrient uptake, alongside mutations with age.
Of course too much caloric restriction can be detrimental, but seems to me this could explain much of the difference in life expectancy between men and women. That and perhaps the genetic advantages from having two X chromosomes.
He's right. The very reason free markets don't exist is the same exact reason why communism doesn't work in practice. All markets collapse until there's a few dominant businesses (ie monopolies), just as how society naturally forms governing hierarchies. And this is easy to see how they're opposed. All you have to do is look at how there's only 4 types of governments based on how decision making power is distributed, and that democracy is actually closer to communism on that spectrum rather than dictatorships, and then see how monopolies behave quite like dictatorships.
That said, true dictatorships rarely work in practice but for different reasons as to why communism doesn't work. Which is why, when it comes to organizations, almost all are in fact oligarchies in practice, despite whatever they're called. This is known as the iron law of oligarchy. Notice the term: oligopoly? Go look at every industry and there's near always an oligopoly.
> I have noticed a lot of debt hysteria from people who don't seem to understand basic accounting. That is, one party's asset is another party's liability.
This is correct, but... let me ask you, would it concern you, if my asset is your liability? I mean, would it concern you if you had to pay for my house? How about everything it is I do? How would this not be a concern? If it is not, then why don't you publicly disclose your credit card?
Frankly, I wouldn't agree with the article, and call having different quality options at different prices, "price discrimination", even if consumers are discriminating based on price. That's just offering a selection of different products of varying quality and prices. No harm in that IMO.
It's more the reverse, wherein the service provider discriminates to charging people different amounts for the exact same good/service (not just different quality goods/services). IMO, this is more likely what people have a problem with.
Sounds like the work of mustering up instructions... like programming...
So how do these LLM's completely remove us from having to do this work of mustering up instructions? Seems to me someone still has to instruct LLMs on what to do, and that the only way this reality will cease to exist entirely, is if humanity stopped desiring computers to do what it is they want. I don't think that's happening anytime soon.
However, maybe fewer programmers will be needed, but then again, the same was said of Fortran and COBOL and look at where we are today, more programmers than ever...
> Sounds like the work of mustering up instructions... like programming...
Again, try Deep Research. You make a vague request, and it works with you to make it specific enough that it can deliver a product with some confidence that it will meet your requirements. Like a product manager, business analyst, requirements engineer, or whatever they call it these days.
I disagree with the notion that life isn't zero sum. It only looks this way using a definition that conflates wealth with value, or from a viewpoint far from the limits of nature that would otherwise make this kind of nature obvious. Arguably what we've done, is merely transformed wealth into other forms we valued more.
Certainly value isn't zero sum, as we can always change our minds and value something else more, but I don't think this is a good argument for life (or wealth) not being zero sum. Anything we create, takes energy or resources from elsewhere (zero sum). Every path you choose to go down in life, is a path you didn't go down (zero sum). Simply put - everything has a cost. Sure we may not value costs equally (not zero sum), but remove our arbitrary valuations for things from the equation, and it is zero sum.
It seems like your conflating the meaning of zero-sum. It's specific to limited contexts where one party's gain must come at an equal loss to another party. "Every path you choose to go down in life, is a path you didn't go down" has nothing to do with the concept of zero-sum.
Our entire civilization is built on non-zero-sum cooperation. Technology is the byproduct of non-zero-sum cooperation.
If you're going to try and argue against game theory, your going to have to bring a much better argument.
^^ Redefines meaning of life to be dollars, accuses opponent of redefining zero-sum.
Silicon Valley is built on the attention economy. That term is a euphemism for making people spend their waking hours on addictive crap, taking away from the useful sum total. That's my definition.
Silicon valley is built on transistors, and by extension computers and software. The media industry is built on the attention economy.
Competing for people's attention is a zero-sum game, but building technology that helps people be more productive and do new things they couldn't before is not zero-sum.
Are you accusing me of redefining the meaning of life to be dollars? If so, I completely deny that accusation as it doesn't remotely align with my beliefs or what I said in my comment.
We also observe that larger animals tend to live longer than smaller animals, but intra-species it tends to be the opposite (e.g. small dogs tend to live slightly longer than large dogs). It also makes some sense biologically speaking, as we now know that most genetic mutations and errors happen during cellular reproduction when DNA is copied, and cellular reproduction rates correlate with nutrient uptake, alongside mutations with age.
Of course too much caloric restriction can be detrimental, but seems to me this could explain much of the difference in life expectancy between men and women. That and perhaps the genetic advantages from having two X chromosomes.
reply