estearum

18 ms·

421.
by estearum 3mo ago
Oh I see, you're claiming that 1.9 million people in the US were engaged in printing. You're referring to a NAICS code set that includes both printing and the entire publishing apparatus around it. At printing's peak, there
422.
by estearum 3mo ago
My own initial comment literally addressed the uncertainty. Here: > You can argue about whether the obsolescence is real or not, but if it is [emphasis in source], the plight of the printers is totally incomparable. "It hasn'
423.
by estearum 3mo ago
Do you think IT is the only field threatened by AI? Must not spend much time talking to people in other fields.
424.
by estearum 3mo ago
What is?
425.
by estearum 3mo ago
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero reason to think about events that haven't happened yet. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
426.
by estearum 3mo ago
Is someone arguing otherwise?
427.
by estearum 3mo ago
Not really. It's like giving a gun to someone with the job of "keep people safe." Totally coherent, but actually proliferates the dangerous technology.
428.
by estearum 3mo ago
Addressed a whole day ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49209919 I implore you to think a little bit about what degree of political, policy, and economic stability is actually required for anyone to embark on decade
429.
by estearum 3mo ago
And then what? Suddenly everyone gets paid for doing nothing of added value? We ban AI and similar ultra-high leverage technologies?
430.
by estearum 3mo ago
Surprised no one has made the extremely obvious observation that it took literal centuries for printing technology to eliminate the trade of printers, which could not have possibly have employed more than 0.01% of people at its peak. Compar
431.
by estearum 3mo ago
Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards?
432.
by estearum 3mo ago
Assuming that it's surprisingly little and without pollution concerns, then an acceptable and enforceable policy should be a very simple request, no?
433.
by estearum 3mo ago
It's almost certainly just that Trump is a fundamentally fragile, insecure man. He has proven over and over that he will happily fellate (proverbially speaking) any man who says nice things about him, and at least refrain from assaulti
434.
by estearum 3mo ago
> The average American and European thinks the Earth will be destroyed in current year + 5 years Midwit take, not evidenced whatsoever. Please cite a single source showing any substantial number of people who believe "the earth will
435.
by estearum 3mo ago
Yeah it's a good question, but unfortunately large infrastructure projects require a lot more than just formal legal protections of their funding and permitting. If it takes just one retard at the top to disrupt a massive decades-lon
436.
by estearum 3mo ago
Not sure how that's relevant to the topic here. Your initial comment seemed to imply that these actions are the rational downstream consequences of the US's incentives. Now you seem to be suggesting that maybe it's not, but i
437.
by estearum 3mo ago
"We" is referring to the US federal government, elected by the US population, and which has (and is using) massive levers to kneecap development of renewable energy sources. Some internet commentators may wish to unhelpfully point
438.
by estearum 3mo ago
You are commenting on an article in which the US is deciding (and paying immense costs) in order not to do everything. The current administration is actively trying to squash several proven-valuable ways of converting non-renewable reso
439.
by estearum 3mo ago
Someone who is "rich" in a consumable asset and therefore chooses to just consume that instead of investing in a renewable or compounding asset is colloquially known as "a dumbass."
440.
by estearum 3mo ago
But... you're commenting on an article in which we are stopping the "we are building" part?
441.
by estearum 3mo ago
The goal is not to "gain better control" over the earth's temperature, it's to stop actively throwing the temperature out of control. Worth scrolling through this if you have been midwit-pilled into thinking humans hav
442.
by estearum 3mo ago
That's not how LLMs work
443.
by estearum 3mo ago
The federal government has tons of power but I'm like 99% sure the process for exercising it isn't "send a note to the courts saying this illegal stuff is actually super important for war n stuff" and then they just get
444.
by estearum 3mo ago
Because that's what efficient pricing regimes do.
445.
by estearum 3mo ago
Why would I, or anyone else, ask questions of someone who authoritatively makes claims like "combined arms is when multiple branches work together" lol It's clear you're quite emotionally wrapped up in this topic for som
446.
by estearum 3mo ago
Clearly that tickled a nerve for some reason. Here's a question: When someone says that you have no experience being a professional baseball player, do you say "errrhhmm ackshually, I brush my teeth every morning just like an MLB
447.
by estearum 3mo ago
No the problem is that the variance in state-to-state population has (and will continue) to grow.
448.
by estearum 3mo ago
US Marine talking about Ukraine: “I just think that foreign fighters came here and got a war… a type of warfare that they didn’t expect,” he said. “Especially American foreign fighters. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s not Iraq. You’re taking the
449.
by estearum 3mo ago
> They didn't have more combat experience than Ukraine though Uh yes they did > never mind the additional problems that the Russian military faced at the time of the invasion which are too numerous to list here but include corrup
450.
by estearum 3mo ago
No active American servicemember has fought a near-peer adversary lmao You should do some reading from the people who fought in GWOT and are now volunteering in Ukraine. Obviously combat experience is better than no combat experience, but w

More ›