BobbyJo

10 ms·

121.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
Urbanization has separated far more families than suburbanization, so the isolation argument, as if suburbanization is the core cause, doesn't make sense to me.
122.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
The fundamental challenge of AI is preventing unprompted creativity. I can spin up a random initialization and call all of it's output avante garde if we want to get creative.
123.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
That's household income. You need to adjust for the change in households with multiple earners. That's why I said the census data is dirty and conflates things. The number of households with both parents working increased from 46%
124.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
US Census tracks income, its just harder to pull out since they don't provide nice charts like the fed.
125.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
Census data, it goes back way farther, but conflates things pre-1975 along a lot of variables since that was barely post-segregation. Not sure how you're getting 42k: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetar
126.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
Median earnings in 1970 were closer to 56k in today's dollars. 1970-1980 was a recessionary period, followed by stagflation in the 80s. I hate when people use that time period as an anchor to show growth. It's like using 2009 as a
127.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
Real wages were down ~15-20% from 1970 to 1979... so, not a good year to anchor on.
128.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
That's fair, but I would expect the bullwhip that followed the supply chain issues would have reversed a lot of the price increases, but inflation continued well into 2023 and even today is elevated above pre-COVID.
129.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
The margin is wider but the number is smaller. You can be on a hundred different game servers at various times, but you're only born and grow up in an area once.
130.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
Well, unless political candidates and the general public suddenly gain 30 IQ points and become more collaborative than at any point in history, it's the best we have. The fact that we don't already measure/enforce outcomes fo
131.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
Yes, the totality of the private sector. Literally every company in US with more than 100 employees is trying to position itself effectively. The government is as well, to a much smaller degree, but the fact remains that there is too many u
132.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
Holy books seem to be buffets that people just pick their favorite dishes from, for the most part. At least, in the western world. I can't speak to elsewhere.
133.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
> LLMs write shitty code LLMs regurgitate shitty code. They learned it entirely from people.
134.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
The US's actions caused the US to create anti-US propaganda? I'm getting lost here.
135.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
> So 9/11 happened due to US imperialism. I said that was part of the reason, not all of it. > And there's no incident ever in Iran related to US imperialism? I'm not sure what you're asking or why. There have prob
136.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
> Comparing their progress towards building a bomb under and after the agreement? Well yeah, like I said, it was a stalling maneuver. It slowed things down. > We know they followed the agreement with minor discrepancies, and when sanc
137.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
How can a thing that doesn't exist relate to history?
138.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
Fair enough. If you think terrorist and satan have equal grounding in reality then we'll just have to chalk the disagreement up to a difference in priors.
139.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
No, I think that had a lot to do with post WW2 imperialism in the middle east, along with religious motivations.
140.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
> "Terrorism" is inherently a subjective, ideological label If the US started calling Iran "Satan" would you see that as an escalation of rhetoric, or business as usual?
141.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
That is a question one could ask. A little beyond me to answer.
142.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
I wouldn't classify full scale war as "antagonizing," but, if you want to downplay it, be my guest.
143.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
"It was working" I'm trying to discuss what that means, because I think that's where we are disagreeing. What does that mean to you? To me (and it's crafters) the JCPOA "working" meant slowing Iran down te
144.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
Maybe the US military is aiming for a greater level of confidence in order to say "definitely destroyed" than some random guy online needs in order to say "possibly destroyed"?
145.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
There is plenty of evidence Iran funds terrorism. I don't know of any evidence that Americans are biblical monsters, but I'm open to new information.
146.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
I agree, I'm just confused where that fits in this thread.
147.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
So you think "Death to America" and "Death to terrorists and evil" are the same? Do you think saying "criminals should be punished" is similarly wrong to say? Honest question, as I'm confused about your mo
148.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
You are ignoring the fundamental difference between the JCPOA's goals and the argument here. JCPOA was not a denuclearization agreement, it wasn't even a "no atomic bombs" agreement. All it did was limit centrifuge count
149.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
The US creates "death to America" b-roll?
150.
by BobbyJo 6mo ago
The were arguing the opposite of what you said if anything. You sure you didn't respond to the wrong comment?

More ›