> People are not willing to sacrifice their freedom to save 40,990 people from cars, why should our constant locations be monitored?
It's not binary.
People are absolutely willing to sacrifice some of their freedoms to save lives. That's why we have speed limits, seat-belt and helmet laws, automobile safety regulations, DWI laws, etc.
have you seen how anyone online reacts when speeding or red light cameras are installed? or when parking becomes discouraged for sake of pedestrians or residents?
i am somewhat convinced that Americans views on cars is like that of guns, a absolute right that can and will not be infringed no matter how many must die
cars are more of a necessary “evil” than guns so the comparison is a little extreme so i don’t think the infringement of movement to cars is entirely irrational or unmetered, esp when in 99% of this country a car is absolutely required to live
> have you seen how anyone online reacts when speeding or red light cameras are installed? or when parking becomes discouraged for sake of pedestrians or residents?
That didn't address what the poster wrote, it's just a cheap reddit style of internet arguing that doesn't add anything. OP is right, society in general tolerates a bunch of regulations as to what and where and how they can drive.
Deaths from road accidents are (somewhat) more tolerated than say murder because of the enormous utility of cars. This is not bewildering to anybody who is not being disingenuous.
i am plainly disagreeing with the assertion that people are unwilling to give up more freedoms of driving to save lives based off my anecdotal experiences online seeing how ppl seem to on avg react to such regulations being passed
I thought about that as well. It's certainly a concern.
In the end I decided that the concrete benefits from giving Anthropic access to this kind of data outweigh the potential risks. Granted, they might be banking on me making this exact, naieve calculation, but still.
The saving grace of the SP500 and most similar indexes is that they are cap-weighted. So if SpaceX only, floats 5% only that 5% of their capitalization counts for index calculation.
The Nasdaq100 is more complicated. SpaceX's 5% would be counted as about 25% of their total market cap for indexing.
It's worse than that, because S&P500 and Nasdaq100 share stocks. Like all of the MAG7 stocks. So if mag7 stocks dip because they're being structurally sold to buy SpaceX, then the S&P500 goes down too.
Arguably even worse because at least Nasdaq100 would have SpaceX in it that's getting bid up to offset the losses in other stocks. S&P won't have SpaceX right away. So it just goes down.
And the more those stocks go down, the lower their market cap - which means next rebalancing date they potentially get re-weighted again causing a bit more selling, etc. Presumably the companies that can will counter this with more buy-backs to keep their share price propped at an acceptable level (?).
A Multitudes study recently cited in Scientific American showed exactly this.
AI led to not only longer hours overall, but also a shift from development to bug fixing and a 19.6% increase in out-of-hour commits. So longer hours, less interesting tasks, and more weekend work.
Every few years a bill is introduced requiring profitable companies to pay additional taxes to cover the cost of the SNAP (food stamp) benefits received by their employers.
Lobbying ensures such proposals never gets far, but it seems like a common sense way of ensuring that these funds subsidize people rather than corporations.
A Google survey of 5,000 developers finds AI helps developers release more software—while logging longer hours and fixing problems after the code goes live.
It seems that LLMs always do the enjoyable work and leave us with the drudgery.
It was supposed to do the dishes while we create art and write poetry, but it turns it gets to create the art and poetry while we wash the dishes. AU gets to write the code while we have to review it and fix the bugs.
William Shatner is someone I really wish I could dislike. I mean, he is certainly not a conventionally talented singer or actor. He's laughably, painfully bad sometimes.
But the man keeps going! He's one of the hardest working people in show business. He clearly takes his craft very seriously, even if he defines it a bit differently from the rest of world.
The Wrath of Khan has no business being as great a movie as it is, and his version of Common People is fantastic.
I'm sure this collaboration will be .... something else.
== Edit
I'm sure I am over-analyzing this - I do that with everything - but Common People is actually "perfect" Shatner.
When you start listening, you feel "OK, this is lame." After a bit it clicks and it becomes "Oh! I see what they are trying to do here." and by the end it becomes "Damn! This is awesome."
Shatner doesn't change throughout the performance, but everything just falls into place around him.
> But the man keeps going! He's one of the hardest working people in show business. He clearly takes his craft very seriously, even if he defines it a bit differently from the rest of world.
I still think him (of Star Trek) opening AFI's tribute to George Lucas (of Star Wars) was genius:
His acting is laughably, painfully bad and then suddenly incredibly poignant and for some reason for the whole time it's bad I'm subconsciously like "oh this part doesn't count". It's so easy to root for him
His style seems quite Shakespearean which was done in a slightly over the top way to entertain the live crowds at the time, rather than the realistic style popular nowadays with close up filming.
Alien 3 is my favourite in the Alien franchise, so I'm a chance to see it your way. But then I love American Psycho and the portrayal by Christian Bale, so maybe I'm already out of the running.
The article fundamentally misrepresents what AI is doing.
It claims that people using AI to create works that violate copyright is equivalent to individual artists painting pictures or people writing fan fiction. But that is not at all what is happening.
OpenAI and others are taking money from customers to generate copyrighted works. That's back-letter copyright infringement.
The states that it is unreasonable to go after all the individual customers. That's true, but that's not how copyright law has ever been enforced. If you have a company selling copyrighted works without permission, you go after that company not after their customers.
It's not binary.
People are absolutely willing to sacrifice some of their freedoms to save lives. That's why we have speed limits, seat-belt and helmet laws, automobile safety regulations, DWI laws, etc.
reply