danaris

21 ms·

331.
by danaris 5mo ago
Um...dial it back a notch or two there, chum. "We have enough for everyone, and it is being deliberately gatekept by the wealthy" does not logically equate to "therefore if we removed that gatekeeping we'd have Stalinism
332.
by danaris 5mo ago
If a technology is improving life for a handful of people (that you happen to be part of) but making it measurably worse for vastly more people can you really say that that technology is "improving life for humans"?
333.
by danaris 5mo ago
But that's the thing, and what's really different from how it's ever been before: there absolutely is enough for everyone. It's being deliberately gatekept from us by the wealthy, and by those who believe that no one
334.
by danaris 5mo ago
The Amish are a cult. Some of them are quite happy! Others are miserable; many are abused. It's a high-control group, that raises its children to believe the outside world as a terrible, scary place, and they are the only safe place
335.
by danaris 5mo ago
But a high density of tech billionaires does prevent a regular family in Tennessee from putting food on their table, by increasing the poverty rates . They do this by a number of mechanisms, including lobbying to reduce or end programs l
336.
by danaris 5mo ago
> they say 'build something useful'. Do they? Or do they just say "build something that will make us money "? Seems to me even "useful" would be more moral than the reality.
337.
by danaris 5mo ago
I know it's (genuinely) hard to believe in this day and age, but pre-2000, and especially before the founding of Fox News in 1996, the news you got was much, much more likely to be genuine, with real investigative reporting that wasn&#
338.
by danaris 5mo ago
I assure you, if, under the current system, everyone were required to reveal all our secrets a) the rich and powerful would be able to use the secrets of the weak and poor to exploit and subjugate us even more b) the rich and powerful wou
339.
by danaris 5mo ago
But in real life, any time you have "a free market", by the definition of "no or minimal regulations", you will inevitably end up with a very un-free market, by the definition of "lots of choice for the consumer,
340.
by danaris 5mo ago
And if it were just me handwaving it away with that as a random hypothetical, that would be a reasonable response. It's not. It's supported by, AIUI, multiple peer-reviewed studies now. Just because you don't like the idea do
341.
by danaris 5mo ago
You don't think banks should have to follow rules about how they safeguard their depositors' money? (PayPal) You don't think hotels should have to follow rules about how they keep their properties, or require their tenants to
342.
by danaris 5mo ago
Porn addiction has been shown not to be a real thing. People who believe they are addicted to porn view porn at approximately the same rate as other people: they just feel more guilty about it, due to being raised to believe that it is sham
343.
by danaris 5mo ago
If they leave the country voluntarily, then Trump & co can't put them in concentration camps. And it's targeting poor people, who are disproportionately nonwhite.
344.
by danaris 5mo ago
The purpose of this isn't to twist people's arms to pay for their kids. It's to punish poor, especially nonwhite, people and make it hard for them to escape the oppression of the Trump regime.
345.
by danaris 5mo ago
I think if there's a way to make it work, it would have to involve restricting the sizes of individual communities—probably with a "soft limit" and a "hard limit". Above the "soft limit", people can&#x27
346.
by danaris 5mo ago
> whoever figures out how to give authentic online experiences is going to be successful The problem is, there is fundamentally no way to scale this. The only way to give authentic human interaction with like-minded individuals is to c
347.
Dirty Frag: Universal Linux LPE(github.com)
4 points by danaris 5mo ago|0 comments
348.
by danaris 6mo ago
> They're not going to dredge up decade old institutional knowledge Worse—they'll get the people who hold that knowledge laid off, and at least 50% of the institutional knowledge won't be documented anywhere that even cou
349.
by danaris 6mo ago
I assure you, the proportion of New Orleans residents who would be able to leave now without financial hardship are not the majority. Even for reasonably-stable middle-class people, moving—especially out of a place like NOLA—is going to
350.
by danaris 6mo ago
If this was true years ago, it is not anymore. There are plenty of stories, and posts, about climate change. And over the...I dunno, something like 9 years? I've been here, I have observed a distinct but gradual shift to the left in th
351.
by danaris 6mo ago
> it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population Ah, right: it's a small percentage of the population, so we should just let them die, "and decrease the surplus population", right? This kind of
352.
by danaris 6mo ago
No, you are condescendingly proposing individual solutions to a systemic problem.
353.
by danaris 6mo ago
OK...and what does that look like on a desktop browser? Because if I click on a menu button on a desktop browser, I generally don't expect it to take over the entire page with a menu. This seems like an example of unhelpfully mobile-ce
354.
by danaris 6mo ago
...because the opening line of the blog post says he's been "building websites with LLMs", and then attempts to cutely redefine that abbreviation as "Lots of Little htMl pages" in a parenthetical. It's, um. Not
355.
by danaris 6mo ago
...But what percentage of Swedes is that? vs the vast majority of working-class Americans. Remember, outside of its few biggest and wealthiest cities, the US just does not have decent, reliable public transport, and most places don't h
356.
by danaris 6mo ago
In addition to the human cost that others mention, the big problem is that in our current system, this doesn't lead to fresh blood coming in and being able to compete on an even footing: it leads to the giant incumbents schlorping up t
357.
by danaris 6mo ago
> There is no scenario where not having a fab is beneficial. Mmm, I think that's an overly strong statement. In the scenario where Apple has a fab that's doing work at a 2030 level in 2030, that's great, especially if ever
358.
by danaris 6mo ago
Until the late '70s-early '80s, overall productivity tracked very closely with wage growth. Then wage growth flattened out, at the same time that the wealth of the wealthiest few started to grow by leaps and bounds. It is the fa
359.
by danaris 6mo ago
> It has always been non-deterministic but we relied on low level engineers who knew the dark magicks to keep the horrors at bay. This is a disingenuous comparison. First of all, what you're talking about is nondeterminism at the ha
360.
by danaris 6mo ago
"There are five companies that we selected because they have absolutely massive growth, far beyond anything else in the market. Should we really say Apple did well just because they're a member of that group?"

More ›