ajross

15 ms·

271.
by ajross 6mo ago
You're goalpost-moving to the converse of your point, though. You weren't claiming that there was merely a meaningful population who wouldn't benefit, you were stating that there was NO meaningful population that would. G
272.
by ajross 6mo ago
Well, your statement was that a "meaningful population of the target audience" did not "have any meaningful amount of treasuries in their portfolio". And that's wrong. Basically everyone holds treasuries. Some
273.
by ajross 6mo ago
Not over the last few months, obviously. But in general I've never known a serious trader who didn't maintain a cash balance at some non-trivial level, if only to maintain liquidity for low-latency bets. But regardless, the point
274.
by ajross 6mo ago
Uh... do you have cash in a money market account? What do you think the "money market" is, exactly?
275.
by ajross 6mo ago
> Similarly, I might be receiving Social Security or Medicare benefits. The demographic here is likely to be benefitting most from the mortgage interest deduction and 401k contribution "deduction" (it's deducted before pay
276.
by ajross 6mo ago
This seems mistaken to me. The core idea is that LLMs are commoditizing and that the UI (Siri in this case) is what users will stick with. But... what's the argument that the bulk of "AI value" in the coming decade is going
277.
by ajross 6mo ago
Bug bounties don't reflect the market impact of the vulnerability though, just the amount needed to incentivize white hats to do research they wouldn't otherwise (or that they would target to other platforms that pay higher bounti
278.
by ajross 6mo ago
It's frustrating how genuinely effective Iran's management of the information war has been. This, the Lego things, the front-running of TACO moments. They understand the White House decision-making process better than the White
279.
by ajross 6mo ago
"stop" (Obviously the equipment doesn't go away. You can start it again. But if you can't make a buck doing something, you won't do it.)
280.
by ajross 6mo ago
Didn't have "Europe is antisemitic because of the Spanish Inquisition" on my bingo card today. No one expects it, indeed.
281.
by ajross 6mo ago
I honestly think this argument (that cheap vulnerabilities means more zero days) is backwards. Making vulnerability detection cheaper shifts the balance in favor of the good guys, because it dilutes the size of the black market that the di
282.
by ajross 6mo ago
The very fact that your takeaway from that story was "look at how dumb my enemies are" is why this is a conflict worth worrying about. Are you right? Yeah, basically. Are you going to laugh at your stupid neighbors until they bu
283.
by ajross 6mo ago
Reasons to treat these situations differently: 1. The executive is doing very obvious insider trading, you can point at exact trades and bets that are clearly being made based on inside info. That's very different than the statistic
284.
by ajross 6mo ago
LLMs can write and run tests though. You're cherry picking my little bit of wordsmithing. Obviously we aren't always wrong. I'm saying that our thought processes stem from hallucinatory connections and are routinely wrong o
285.
by ajross 6mo ago
> Humans - at least thoughtful humans - know the difference between knowing something and not knowing something. Your no-true-scotsman clause basically falsifies that statement for me. Fine, LLMs are, at worst I guess, "non-thought
286.
by ajross 6mo ago
Pretty much, yeah. Or rather, the fact that we're both reliably wrong in identifiably similar ways makes "we're more alike than different" an attractive prior to me.
287.
by ajross 6mo ago
> If so, how do we distinguish between code that works and code that doesn't work? Hilariously, not by using our brains , that's for sure. You have to have an external machine. We all understand that "testing" and
288.
by ajross 6mo ago
> it's reductive to just call LLMs "bullshit machines" as if the models are not improving This is true, but I prefer to think of it as "It's delusional to pretend as if human beings are not bullshit machines too&
289.
by ajross 6mo ago
> rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it. They lost some
290.
by ajross 6mo ago
> That this isn't a workable long-term solution IMHO that's bad analysis. This is a VERY good solution from Iran's perspective. They stared down a superpower and won. They've gone from an international pariah and
291.
by ajross 6mo ago
FWIW, money is the easiest term to agree to. We have lots and lots. I agree, it will never be called "reparations", but you can trivially structure it in a zillion ways that just look like foreign aid or debt forgiveness or what
292.
by ajross 6mo ago
> what did the US gain out of this? The best steelman argument[1] is that it was a failed gamble. The protests of a few months back (also the improbable success in Venezuela) made them think they could topple the regime. They couldn&#x
293.
by ajross 6mo ago
Just to call it out now that it's happened: it was 3, he was bluffing, and he just folded. The US is halting operations. Iran still holds de facto control over the straight. Trump himself even called out Iran's previous 10-poin
294.
by ajross 7mo ago
That doesn't make any sense to me. Under Bretton Woods, a "dollar" was a contractual equivalent to a fixed amount of gold. There's no difference. When people are talking about "flow out" they're not tal
295.
by ajross 7mo ago
> If man was designed by someone with any taste at all it would at least give you a menu [...] My goodness. Man was written on a paper teletype.
296.
by ajross 7mo ago
Again, I'm really not understanding your offense here. You came to me to disagree with something I posted. And as it happened you were wrong. I told you so, and you dug in twice with more incorrect takes. That's just... disc
297.
by ajross 7mo ago
... you were the one who replied to me. And, you were wrong, so I said so. Indeed this is a very frustrating site to post incorrect points. It's like ground zero for Cunningham's Law study cases.
298.
by ajross 7mo ago
> This doesn't mean anything since "who they say they are" is an anonymous username with no real life correlation. No, that's affirmatively incorrect. AUR and PPA both require authenticated accounts. The "real
299.
by ajross 7mo ago
AUR (also PPA which another comment cited) is emphatically not the same as "just run this script". If anything, and at worst, it's analogous to NPM: it's an unverified repository where the package is run at the whim o
300.
by ajross 7mo ago
It's really not, and to the extent it is it's an echo of the nonsense filtering from elsewhere. Linux distros went decades without this kind of thing by packaging the popular stuff securely. People who wanted the source knew how

More ›