jjulius

34 ms·

661.
by jjulius 2y ago
>Yeah, but he’s good at it, though. That’s the amazing thing. It’s really obvious to everyone what he’s doing, and yet he still manages to pull it off, repeatedly. Is it "amazing"? Or is it just that everything he does is techn
662.
by jjulius 2y ago
>Why is any attempt at financial privacy deemed money laundering? Why does making any tool that help law abiding citizens have financial privacy, also guilty of money laundering? These are untrue absolutes.
663.
by jjulius 2y ago
>Regarding his potentially attaining an equity stake, Altman said, “There are no current plans here,” the person said. >OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor told CNBC in a statement that while the board has talked about the matter, no specific
664.
by jjulius 2y ago
>I don't know what IG "archiving" entails, does it remove stories from public view or something? Ah, there's the disconnect. "Stories" only display for 24 hours, and then they're gone from your profile.
665.
by jjulius 2y ago
You're over-engineering what is otherwise a straightforward solution for this particular instance. Instagram allows you to save stories to your mobile device, so... 1.) Download your story to your mobile device. Congratulations, you no
666.
by jjulius 2y ago
Yet another friendly reminder that your data isn't yours unless you store it locally.
667.
by jjulius 2y ago
Being dishonest and cagey only serves to build public distrust in your organization, as has happened with OpenAI over the past couple of months. Just look at all of the comments throughout this thread for proof of that. Edit: Shoot, look at
668.
by jjulius 2y ago
How do you explain all of the constant unflagged criticism of OpenAI and Sam Altman throughout nearly every OpenAI thread? I mean, look around at all of the comments here...
669.
by jjulius 2y ago
Genuinely curious because I have no idea how any of this works... Would the founding documents actually count as proof of a lie? I feel like the defense could easily make the argument that the documents accurately represented their intent a
670.
by jjulius 2y ago
I found this on the front page an hour after you made this comment.
671.
by jjulius 2y ago
All OP said was that they found them goofy looking. Whether or not you're into high fashion doesn't change the fact that taste is entirely subjective and everyone who finds them too thick, or goofy looking, is more than welcome to
672.
by jjulius 2y ago
>... and says a lot about the audience here that you're all oblivious to this fact. What does it say beyond, "This person doesn't pay attention to high fashion", and why does it feel like you're judging people fo
673.
by jjulius 2y ago
Because, for some weird reason, our culture has collectively decided that, even if most of us are capable of reading between the lines to understand what's really being said or is happening, it's often wrong and bad to be honest
674.
by jjulius 2y ago
>These people are not seeking "truth" Careful with those absolutes, there. And the whole "these people" thing, too, probably.
675.
by jjulius 2y ago
That's kinda besides the point. The point is that without some kind of ban (viable or not, political opposition or not, made by a dictator or made by public voting, yadda yadda), you're not likely to make progress on reducing carb
676.
by jjulius 2y ago
This is a black and white perspective, while the world happens to be quite nuanced.
677.
by jjulius 2y ago
>To a first approximation, "extract profit from this" means providing goods/services that people are willing to pay money for. This is too generous, particularly with regards to a16z coming into an already existing market.
678.
by jjulius 2y ago
There is one Uber, there are untold numbers of other companies/businesses operating more reputably.
679.
by jjulius 2y ago
I genuinely don't care. I've questioned downvotes I've received before, but usually it's just because I want to know why I might have had a bad take or how I might be looking at things wrong. Respectfully, I know nobody
680.
by jjulius 2y ago
And, at least IMO, that doesn't really imbue faith.
681.
by jjulius 2y ago
Yet, as mentioned elsewhere in this same comment chain, they're almost certainly overvalued and in a bubble. Not only that, but their overall image has suffered over the last few years thanks to Musk. There are plenty of concerns over
682.
by jjulius 2y ago
>The market correctly anticipated Tesla's short-term popularity. FTFY
683.
by jjulius 2y ago
The specifics are literally in the article.
684.
by jjulius 2y ago
>Unions also use aggressive measures rather than negotiations. Unions start with negotiations and move to strikes if those don't work. Literally what happened here. >There are very few good stories with unions but most of them ar
685.
by jjulius 2y ago
... you do know that unions historically support workers, not companies?
686.
by jjulius 2y ago
Not sure why you feel the need to gatekeep the kinds of responses we can give to your question - you asked, and I sure wasn't the only one with that answer. But maybe you're right - maybe we should cherry pick what we discuss, you
687.
by jjulius 2y ago
No, the premise of the conversation is "sleepwalking towards war". Sleepwalking involves doing things that you're not aware you're doing, which could have dire consequences. The alternative is to wake up and be conscious
688.
by jjulius 2y ago
"Not going to war" starts with "don't invade another country".
689.
by jjulius 2y ago
Ah, thank you for adhering to general internet commenting guidelines, where we insert words into others mouths that aren't the most generous interpretation of what they could be saying. No, I certainly wouldn't have stepped back
690.
by jjulius 2y ago
... I dunno, not going to war over something like that, maybe?

More ›