underlipton

5 ms·

1.
by underlipton 5d ago
Not possible, under the current economic regime. People simply cannot pay for things anymore; the wage-to-productivity ratio has fallen so much that we can't afford the things that are being produced; they get rented to us instead. Peo
2.
by underlipton 5d ago
Gemini Chat is constantly throwing, "Pro is in high demand right now, a different model was used for this generation," too. I'm thinking they're all running out of physical resources. It's the DotCom bubble all over
3.
by underlipton 5d ago
It's not worth it to solve any of the problems, let alone the biggest problem, if we can't solve all of the problems immediately, after all.
4.
by underlipton 5d ago
Urgent care is not a replacement for a family doctor or internist who can track your health across long periods of time. That's like comparing a substitute teacher to a tutor; a sub might be able to answer your questions, but they cann
5.
by underlipton 5d ago
It sounds like there's too much money in PE and not enough in the hands of young people. I'm told there is a secret ancient technique for rectifying such a situation.
6.
by underlipton 5d ago
>Otherwise you are no better than someone at an intersection with a bottle of Windex and a squeegee who, unsolicited, cleans a windshield and then demands the driver to pay for it. This seems like a pet-peeve that's slipped through,
7.
by underlipton 7d ago
Still have my fingers crossed that the guy in Kentucky gunning for McConnell's seat can pull off a historic upset.
8.
by underlipton 7d ago
I'm upset because I have to pay to use it or else be hit with onerous rate limiting for stuff that "should have been in the public domain to begin with."
9.
by underlipton 7d ago
Pretty sure we had to sanction/assassinate/goad into self-destructive military campaigns the Red Terror to beat it. And even then, the major survivor still beat us to cyberpunk dystopia (the cool one with hologram skyscrapers, n
10.
by underlipton 7d ago
Huey Freeman: "Kim Dotcom was pissed ."
11.
by underlipton 7d ago
Yep. And also, (some significant fraction of) the money that Chinese companies earn also makes it back to the Chinese people (imperfectly) in the form of capital improvements, better access to goods and services, and "not becoming inso
12.
by underlipton 8d ago
People are getting lost in the weeds and ignoring the simple, fundamental fact that these companies are making fortunes off of labor that they didn't attempt to compensate the laborers for. "Property" and "IP" discu
13.
by underlipton 8d ago
Who decides what's a right? By what criteria?
14.
by underlipton 8d ago
crop-topping
15.
by underlipton 8d ago
There's a Judas Priest joke in here somewhere.
16.
by underlipton 8d ago
Yes. And you(r lawyer) can collect lawyer's fees and you can be made to pay the court fees, if you lose. IME the American legal system is set-up to discourage litigation, though. A common tactic is to bury your opponent in the threat
17.
by underlipton 9d ago
You're not counting the people who die of homelessness, or of depression because they seem stuck in a situation where they'll never have reliable housing, or in a car accident on their too-long commute, or of a heart attack becaus
18.
by underlipton 11d ago
It's not while, it's because. They have to create a "threat" that's of the same "magnitude" as their actual crimes, vectoring out from the subjective origin of "traditional" man/woman identi
19.
by underlipton 12d ago
I'd date it to around then, too, but for a different reason. Whether you think it was a good or bad thing, I don't think it's incorrect to characterize the pre-2010s web as "socially progressive libertarian". 2013 w
20.
by underlipton 13d ago
I'll do you one better: each state gets a direct share. So, not nationalized in the sense of getting put behind a faceless bureaucracy forever; states collectively have control and benefit directly from success.
21.
by underlipton 15d ago
>I have personally deactivated that toggle on multiple occasions and for some reason it keeps getting toggled on Thank you for pointing that out. I just checked, and mine was on, too. Annoyingly, the toggle even stalls a bit, so I hit it
22.
by underlipton 15d ago
This. These platforms are asking to be trusted with unprecedented amounts of the public's data and, unprecedentedly itself, the public's reasoning and decision-making. It's an awesome responsibility that requires a singular a
23.
by underlipton 16d ago
Surprisingly, large, structural changes in society require non-zealots, who yet can still see the advantages of the vision, to be on-board. I haven't read Steinbeck, but I get the feeling that you're mischaracterizing his thrust.
24.
by underlipton 16d ago
That's what happens when you abuse people's trust for years: they don't trust you.
25.
by underlipton 18d ago
I know what the common objections are, and I actually addressed the one you mention: in actual UBI pilot programs, there was no resultant inflation. If you have objections that weren't among the ones stated earlier, you can state them
26.
by underlipton 18d ago
>Before LLMs, what was there to be excited about in the near future? Solar power? Self-driving cars? The energy transition? It’s laughable. I, for one, would have welcomed our green energy revolution overlords. Also, VR/AR, before t
27.
by underlipton 18d ago
You're making a lot of assumptions, not least of which is that "noble" is the only word linking material wealth and intrinsic goodness. See also "fortune", "blessing", "worth", "value",
28.
by underlipton 18d ago
This is the anti-intellectualism I'm talking about. You're disagreeing based on vibes and not facts. Disagreement shouldn't even come into the conversation; falsify the net positive effects. The research is clear that most of
29.
by underlipton 19d ago
I think the anti-intellectualism crisis gets mischaracterized. Common rejection of experts, academia, and empirical findings is certainly a part of it, but I tend to see more of an issue with targeted, self-serving ignorance, particularly a
30.
by underlipton 19d ago
You presented it as something we should have known, because it's logical (and it is). But the problem is that we apparently don't know it, and haven't for some time. It appears as if (part of) humanity has gotten it wrong for

More ›