nfh

I mean, it’s in western Asia, next to Azerbaijan and Georgia. “Complicated definitions of Europe” are part of the point here, but it’s pretty clearly not Europe in my mind, but given the Turkish border, it’s not far from Europe like Australia is

Australia, Armenia, and Morocco are all outside of Europe, and have completed too. Basically all European countries are eligible, plus those whose public broadcasters are part of the European Broadcasting Union.

Why not both?

This is one of many examples of a class of problem where the technology is the easy part. There’s room to improve the tech certainly, but the technology sufficient to solve the problem is already well understood.

The hard part is how to get people to actually do the necessary changes. To consume less, get fewer gas cars on the road, increase the amount of nuclear, hydro, solar, geothermal, and wind in the grid, and minimize coal and gas use. To reduce land use by cows, and increase land use by trees and native plants.

But maybe AI is the secret here. We have tools that are in the hype moment whose training data already contains several reasonable solutions to climate change. Maybe if AI “finds” the solution to climate change, people will finally listen

Did they do their darnedest to pick only people who are true believers? No doubt. Is that a property that’s perfectly ascertainable and immutable? Absolutely not.

The number of people increases the difficulty of hiding a conspiracy, but so does the time scale. I suspect we’ll know a lot more than we do now in 20 years about this, for whatever that’s worth.

Certainly, some interesting developments have happened, and we’ve realized our old models/thinking about progress towards AGI needed improvement… and that’s real. I think there’s a serious conversation to be had about what AGI would be, and how we can know we’re approaching it, and when it has arrived.

But anybody telling you it is close either has something to sell you, or has themselves bought it.

“trying to construct a rhetorical reality” definitely qualifies as lying.

Or he made a dumb assumption that we now know to be wrong, and can’t admit he was wrong? Or doesn’t care about the actual reality of the situation, and prefers the rhetorical reality he was trying to construct

Critically, the people who build these machines don’t typically update drivers to port them to a new OS. You buy a piece of heavy equipment, investing tens, or maybe even a hundred thousand dollars, and there’s an OS it works on, maybe two if you’re lucky. The equipment hopefully works for at least 20 years, and basically no OS is going to maintain that kind of compatibility for that long. Linux might get the closest, but I’ll bet you’re compiling/patching your own kernels before 20 years is up.

This kind of dynamic is unavoidable when equipment vendors sell equipment which has a long usable life (which is good), and don’t invest in software support (which is them being cheap, to an extent), and OSes change enough that these time horizons likely involve compatibility-breaking releases.

What’s the difference with their open-source control server, from headscale? That it’s officially published by the company?

They could probably pass a law that companies within California pay taxes to the fed through an escrow account held by the state, pass the data through so if nothing crazy happens, it doesn’t really affect anybody, and get enough companies to comply that Trump would back down.

The courts would eventually decide whether or not it was legal, but by then Trump will have moved off to another target to performatively attack while pretending to help people who aren’t multi-millionaires while siphoning their money instead.

It’s a structural challenge more than a fallacy, but I don’t entirely disagree. This sort of thing works best when one of two things is true, there’s some way for people to organize, or it’s relatively small and there are real options.

The former clearly isn’t true here, but I think the latter is. There’s a lot of companies trying things with AI, and some are working better or worse. This particular use is relatively small, and I think the downside of doing it is also small in the short term. (This is a giant red flag, avoiding a red flag isn’t a large cost)

In a very real sense, applicants are first and foremost deciding if it works. If they can do something resembling standing together, and refuse at any reasonable scale to take part in AI making hiring decisions, it will fail.

A job at a company that won’t respect your basic humanity isn’t worth having. If you’d rather willingly step into that trap than proceed with whatever you’re doing, or go with other options, are you okay? Like if this sounds like an opportunity and not a giant red flag, I wish there was something I could offer to help you.

Honestly? Especially if it was only for cops

I suspect there’s a tendency of experts in something to think of people who do it narrowly as people doing at least as much as they are.

The people who have a bunch of docker services, or complex multi-machine infrastructure are self-hosted software users, and probably in that 1-2% range. People who heard piholes are useful, so they bought a pi 3 and set it up are self-hosted software users. Somebody using an old desktop they got on Facebook marketplace for running Plex media are self-hosted software users… and so on. So are the people in their houses, some of their friends and family.

Using that inclusive definition, being closer to 10% than 1% makes sense to me.

You don’t get to be a billionaire without some malfeasance.

And even if you don’t assume actively malicious intent like you should with Musk, there’s a lot of potential danger with technology like this, and if you don’t stand a lot to gain, and have reasonable controls against things going wrong, it’s probably not a good idea to be an early adopter. It’s just like a pacemaker, there are a narrow segment of people who should want to test a new model/concept for them.

Speed cameras are a privacy issue that doesn’t solve the problem of speeding. People are most comfortable driving the speed the road is designed for, and if that speed is too high, the solution is to modify the road for a safer speed. The speeders in your example are right here, for the wrong reason; speed cameras should be rare if they’re allowed to exist at all. They have, at most, a short term benefit, and broad public surveillance is a very serious issue they contribute to.

I was one of the people who went to college to learn things, but the more I learn, the more I’m saddened by all the people I went to school with who studied things they didn’t enjoy, didn’t particularly care to get better at, all because they saw it as a way to make money. In optimizing for money, they miss out on learning and fulfillment.

This wasn’t that long ago, but I can only imagine how much heavy GenAI use could intensify that effect

Imagine borrowing $200k for an education, and then doing as little work as you can to actually learn the things you’re paying to know