qwytw

20 ms·

331.
by qwytw 3y ago
> AGI is coming Nobody can even clearly define what that even means. If we're talking about scifi style AGI we're still very, very far from it.
332.
by qwytw 3y ago
> Because the board is not VCs. Except that's not really true. Almost everyone on the board were either VCs themselves or had very strong ties to the them. In any case OpenAI would be irrelevant without significant investments from
333.
by qwytw 3y ago
> I can't help but to think that self-deception is the best weapon people have to use a facade for their greed. I don't find it hard to believe that they in fact wanted to build something new and innovative AND get rich in the
334.
by qwytw 3y ago
Except OpenAI kept pretending that they aren't a real "business" for quite a while.
335.
by qwytw 3y ago
I'm mainly talking about the growth rates rather than the actual values so this is hardly relevant.
336.
by qwytw 3y ago
Generally FAANG/etc. resignation packages seem to be a lot better even in the US than what would be legally required in most/all European countries.
337.
by qwytw 3y ago
> law does not allow them to be fired without cause. (This is the case in a lot places outside of the US). Most places have an opt-out if you're reducing headcount (e.g. due to cost cutting measures rather than firing individual em
338.
by qwytw 3y ago
> blew Japan out of the #2 GDP spot, and far as I can tell is winning the Cold War of our present era. That's like the bare minimum when you have a 10x higher population. Also at the current pace (both population and GDP China will
339.
by qwytw 3y ago
Maybe not collapse but a slowdown and significant decline in some sectors seems like a real risk. Which would be a big issue because China is still quite poor per capita and at this pace it's unlikely to ever catch up with the US: htt
340.
by qwytw 3y ago
> There is nothing to support this widely held idea. This is the very bias I was talking about. You mean you don't think that there is a difference between commercial pilots and truck etc. drivers when it comes to drug and alcohol u
341.
by qwytw 3y ago
> idea that lower status people are inherently shifty and lazy, while higher status people are inherently more virtuous It's not about that. But also statistically on average that idea is accurate in this case at least. The qualific
342.
by qwytw 3y ago
Well yeah, obviously. Because Apple benefited a lot more from developers making apps/etc. for their platform than the other way around. Now that the balances has shifted (of course only on mobile) Apple became a lot more exploitative.
343.
by qwytw 3y ago
> If there was a large price difference, most people wouldn't use it, just like most people do not go to the more expensive supermarket unless they absolutely have to. Yet developers still use Steam and most people prefer buying gam
344.
by qwytw 3y ago
IIRC the standard for serfs was 2-3 days of labor per week (in some cases during harvest even up to 5), for a 6 day workweek. Add various random fees and rents and that's way more than 50-60%. Of course everything improved massively af
345.
by qwytw 3y ago
Yeah but technically nobody is forcing anyone to use Steam. Yet pretty much all the games are published there and the market has decided that the 30% fee is "fair" (AFAIK they can get away charging even more than Apple on average
346.
by qwytw 3y ago
> most apps would save money if the developers were self-distributing them instead of using the App Store There must be a reason why almost all games are still published on Steam despite the 30% though. The increased customer reach almos
347.
by qwytw 3y ago
> You would like others to work for nothing, So like developers working on macOS or Windows? It's so horrible that Apple has allowed third party developers to exploit them for for free for over 40 years now...
348.
by qwytw 3y ago
Which is great from an individual perspective not so much for the economy and the society as a whole. > There will always be more volatility to the upside That's a very strong statement.
349.
by qwytw 3y ago
Only if you have a static or economic in permanent recession then yes. If you have a growing economy (of course not a concern it bitcoin would replace Fiat currencies) it's extremely deflationary. The supply of money has to grow at le
350.
by qwytw 3y ago
Does a system which discourages any investment and makes borrowing extremely expensive benefit or harm society?
351.
by qwytw 3y ago
Well.. it's perfectly obvious but I can spell it out: Deflation significantly inhibits economic growth, making borrowing much more risky and would result in significantly more wealth inequality than we even have now. Why invest into an
352.
by qwytw 3y ago
> It’s a pretty bad deal for most people. Bitcoin is extremely deflationary. Imagine (or read a history book) a society in which almost all wealth/income is derived from land (a "deflationary" asset the value of which only
353.
by qwytw 3y ago
> - bitcoin is a scam That what you said, please don't put words into my mouth. My only point is that bitcoin (or crypto in general) would make a horrible currency if widely adopted. And it has nothing to do with any technical limit
354.
by qwytw 3y ago
> I have purchased items and payed off loans using BTC. So have millions of other people. You calling it not money doesn't make it so. Sorry. I can exchange grain or aluminum for other goods and services and pay back my debts in the
355.
by qwytw 3y ago
> You are defacto forced to put your saving in an investment vehicle to keep up with inflation, taking on risk. Yes. You got it. That's how you get economic growth. Instead of stagnation and deflation when you hoard gold or bitcoin.
356.
by qwytw 3y ago
Well yes that's why the gold standard doesn't make a lot of sense. > priced gold at its true value Which is determined how and by whom? If you let the market do it's that basically (while not technically) Fiat...
357.
by qwytw 3y ago
> permission of luddites Right. Like sticking to the nonsense that was the gold standard. Inherently deflationary virtual token make an objective horrible currency. Believing otherwise puts you on part with the flat earth people.
358.
by qwytw 3y ago
> Okay, so not because you say so but because you think so :) Well.. I mean it's a bit like the "climate change is fake" or "5G causes cancer" people. Getting into a serious argument with them only legitimizes th
359.
by qwytw 3y ago
> they would have lost WWI without leaving the gold standard (other I mainly meant their attempts to get back on the gold standard in the 1920s. Unlike e.g. France and the other European countries which didn't really have a choice a
360.
by qwytw 3y ago
> There is an outside chance of a literal replay of Germany WWI -> WWII if the Russians collapse True but "only" because Russia has nukes (you certainly have an extremely valid point about that). However despite WWI Germany

More ›