rayiner

4 ms·

1.
by rayiner 5d ago
> My favorite part of the new Groks has been how they speak in plain english. I don't know if it's the plain english or what, but I really like Grok for legal research (as opposed to code). It's got a noticeable edge in ge
2.
by rayiner 5d ago
Yeah, my M1 mini with 16GB is great as a daily driver even on Golden Gate. Noticed some slowness recently indexing a huge mail archive, but otherwise I don't even really notice slowdowns.
3.
by rayiner 5d ago
But this is a good thing for egalitarians. It offsets one of the most unfair aspects of the knowledge economy: that some people get to have much more fulfilling and remunerative careers than average people because they were lucky enough to
4.
by rayiner 5d ago
How is Meta supposed to police that line? In a democracy, influencing voting behavior is a key purpose of every “cause.”
5.
by rayiner 5d ago
So should the EPA be able to regulate noise pollution? The problem with your definition is that it encompasses basically all of society. Everything humans do alters the environment, mostly for the worse. By embracing such an expansive def
6.
by rayiner 5d ago
> Why does it matter which of the harmful emissions from a smokestack count as "pollution"? Because society uses labels to delineate the boundaries between different legal regimes and sources of authority, and adhering to those
7.
by rayiner 5d ago
If it was always this way, explain why the IPCC's seminal report on climate change uses the phrases "CO2 enrichment" (rising CO2 levels) and "air pollution" as if they're two different categories? > 2.2.4 Co
8.
by rayiner 5d ago
You don't have to read the whole report, just search for how it uses the words "greenhouse gases" and "air pollution." The IPCC treats those as being two distinct things. For example, on p. 55. > "Consequenc
9.
by rayiner 6d ago
In the 1990 IPCC report it talks about “greenhouse gasses” and also about “air pollution” but treats those as two distinct things: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_a... . Fo
10.
by rayiner 6d ago
Did we call it “pollution” back then or something else? That is, did we lump CO2 conceptually into the same category as soot from coal plants and things like that? Society uses labels to group things together so that we can treat similar th
11.
by rayiner 6d ago
Right, but the 1990 IPCC report doesn’t use the term “pollution” to refer to CO2: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_a... It uses the term “greenhouse gas” to refer to CO2 an
12.
by rayiner 6d ago
> There is no redefinition, it was always part of definition. Source?
13.
by rayiner 6d ago
I'm talking about redefining the term "pollution," not the term "greenhouse gas."
14.
by rayiner 6d ago
I don't see the point of trying to redefine "pollution" to include CO2. We have been discussing climate change for decades, but it was only recently that people tried to shoehorn CO2 into category of "pollution." It
15.
by rayiner 6d ago
> LLMs are not brains and do not meaningfully share any of the mechanisms that animals or people use to reason or think LLMs are a type of neural network. We know that’s how the human brain works, at least directionally. It’s going to be
16.
by rayiner 7d ago
> The first world overcame those problems by extracting obscene amounts of wealth from the third world to make their populations handsomely rich. This is incorrect, bordering on flat-earthism. It's also impossible if you think about
17.
by rayiner 7d ago
> Cost of capital is a direct input to growth (from both investment and consumption). The more expensive it is to borrow, the lower future growth is, and the cost to borrow is increasing Right, which gets back to my point that US GDP per
18.
by rayiner 8d ago
... neither do you.
19.
by rayiner 8d ago
What we care about at the end of the day is bottom line economic growth, specifically GDP per capita growth. Whether government debt is more or less expensive is a collateral matter. It just means you need to make different choices in taxat
20.
by rayiner 8d ago
But what does “backed” actually buy you in economic terms?
21.
by rayiner 8d ago
This argument fundamentally does not make sense. Look at a chart of U.S. GDP per capita growth: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!zSCw!,f_auto,q_auto:... The U.S. was growing at the same rate or faster as th
22.
by rayiner 8d ago
A young man and an old man taking a nap are both "sleeping," but one has his life ahead of him and the other is in his twilight. Europe is the latter.
23.
by rayiner 8d ago
And this is how you get constitutional monarchy.
24.
by rayiner 8d ago
But wouldn't that be great if true? Why all the negativity over the prospect of leveling the playing between people lucky enough to be born with high IQs and average people? High IQ is a completely unearned gift and AI might reduce tha
25.
by rayiner 8d ago
In Maryland you fill out a form settlement agreement, pay $185 filing fee to the court, and attend a hearing that’s usually online.
26.
by rayiner 8d ago
Another thing that happened in 1971! https://wtfhappenedin1971.com
27.
by rayiner 8d ago
Write me the code that says how the Lindsay Clancy case should have come out.
28.
by rayiner 8d ago
Junior associates hallucinate too...
29.
by rayiner 8d ago
"Cartel" has a meaning. Explain how either of those things is a cartel?
30.
by rayiner 8d ago
There are hundreds if not thousands of divorce lawyers. How is it a “cartel?” Divorce is expensive because divorces are acrimonious and people in that situation would rather spend the assets fucking each other over than letting the other pe

More ›