ulyssessword
No bio...
User ID: 308
ulyssessword
8hr ago
I don't get it. Satyress is one step removed from "satire". Juicero is...?
ulyssessword
10hr ago
not paying employees the fair "value" of there labor as unethical.
You can pay fair market wages to everyone your company employs and set agreeable terms with all your contractors. That doesn't mean the wages are "fair value" under whatever framework they're using, or that the circle of concern stops there.
I think all of the examples are going to be in software of some kind. Notch made a billion dollars from Minecraft with only minor contributions from others, and I heard of a billion-dollar aqui-hire in AI. There are probably a bunch of $10M+ projects run by a single person, and scaling that up 100x doesn't seem impossible.
The other possibility would be sports or celebrity. If your personal labor is creating a billion dollars of value, then it seems fine to get a billion dollars.
ulyssessword
14hr ago
That's an accurate description. Doesn't mean it's the right choice.
ulyssessword
2d ago
I'm saying that competence and riggedness are orthogonal.
and I'm saying they aren't. A competently run election isn't just counted correctly, it's verifiable as well. It produces evidence which exposes fraud (if present).
I don't think saboteurs would design a system to catch themselves in their schemes, then proceed to get themselves caught carrying them out. Hence, incompetently-run elections can be caused by people wanting to rig elections. Since the reverse isn't true (incompetent elections aren't caused by people that want an honest election), it is Bayesian evidence.
ulyssessword
2d ago
What do you mean "rather than"? The incompetence enables fraud.
It's not necessarily "the incompetence was deliberately cultivated to create a pathway for fraud", but it still counts.
ulyssessword
2d ago
That's one hell of an error bar, so the research is garbage.
Score one for AI. Claude traced it to here, and said it was a range of results across different studies (with different methodologies and populations), not error bars for a single measure. I retraced the source and read the abstract, but I honestly didn't gain anything that the AI didn't hand to me already.
As an aside, I've stopped listening to the news in my car because I can't fact-check them while I'm driving, but it's easy to do on the web.
ulyssessword
4d ago
For the uninitiated: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cnn-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-protests-parodies
ulyssessword
4d ago
Exactly. The "domestic" part is noteworthy, which is why we invented a term for it.
Why do you think it's noteworthy? I think it's noteworthy because it's significantly different than other crimes. I also think those differences need to be taken into account when comparing it to other crimes.
ulyssessword
4d ago
Why is domestic violence a "category" of crime, instead of simply being rolled into the non-specific whole? You don't see people talking about near-fire-hydrant crime, after all.
I think it's categorized separately because it's different. And because it's different, it might not make for a good basis for comparisons.
ulyssessword
7d ago
"More Communication" is sometimes code for something one level deeper.
- The product has to match the end-user's use cases.
- The project has to use land in a non-disruptive way
- The limitations have to be understood and planned around (by those impacted, not the creators)
But it can also be used as an object-level good:
- Evidence of consent has to be gathered
- Blame has to be shifted
- People have to be pacified
There's a huge gap between more communication as a means of creating/spreading knowledge and more communication as an end in itself. The phrase "More Communication" is almost always code for the latter in my experience.
ulyssessword
7d ago
I’ve also detested those academics who say things like “if you can’t explain it in 5 seconds to a 5 year old, you don’t understand it.” Homie. There are concepts I haven’t been able to understand for my entire life. Same for you.
If you feel like being mean, ask them: "How long did your education take? That long, huh. Did your professors not understand the material, or are you worse at understanding things than a five-year-old?"
At best, a 5-second summary is a label that well-rounded individuals can use to find what you're talking about. At worse, it's a semantic stopsign that gets them to stop asking questions and fake understanding. It doesn't have enough information to explain anything with any complexity.
ulyssessword
11d ago
if someone tried to abuse this system, the town charter would get amended pretty quickly.
Before, or after that abuse let them illegitimately affect the system?
ulyssessword
14d ago
Will it ever replace all workers? No. By the nature of economics, that's basically impossible. People's desires are infinite and there arent infinite resources and labor, so there are always niches to fill.
Minimum wage and related barriers put a finger on the scale though. Currently, very-low-skilled people are unemployable because the assorted costs of hiring them outweigh the expected benefits. In the future, will that extend to moderate skill levels? high? I don't think it'll cut off 100% of people before extinction and/or post-scarcity, but I could see the labor force dropping from about 50% of all people today to 10-20% even if AI remains a normal technology.
ulyssessword
15d ago
I'm not too surprised that a secure piece of software exists, or that it's only 6 MB zipped with more installations than there are humans on Earth and a 30-year history.
Why are you highlighting this anecdote so much?
ulyssessword
17d ago
Punitive damages can push that way up, since they aren't linked to anything suffered by the victim. They can't have the perpetrator getting away with a small slap on the wrist, so they bumped it up a lot. The money had to go somewhere, so it went to the victim.
He was lucky that the perpetrators acted egregiously when they harmed him (because the total compensation he received outweighs his total harms), but I can't think of a better way to do it.
ulyssessword
25d ago
I'm guessing it would never happen.
Something that's one step more reasonable but would also never happen is kicking them out of public school (one at a time, if necessary) if they can't meet the standards of conduct. That wouldn't necessarily reduce the expenses any, but it would at least let the rest of the kids learn in school.
ulyssessword
26d ago
In this scenario, why would we expect inference workloads to shoot up so dramatically?
A few trillions of dollars of compute infrastructure isn't that much. I doubt if the current buildout could cover all non-bullshit labor in the United States, nevermind the rest of the world or all non-labor tasks.
Also, there can be new demand if prices drop low enough. There are a few apps I'd be willing to pay $5 for, and if they're custom-built by an LLM instead of developed for a large market by a company, then I guess I'd be paying for $5 of tokens.
ulyssessword
27d ago
This isn't true - he's buying at the bottom between every pair of ATHs.
Both things can be true. For example:
- He bought in January 2000
- There was a drop ranging from 2001-2009
- Therefore, he bought when a drop was coming.
and
- He didn't buy in 2010
- Prices never went down as low as they were in 2010 again
- Therefore, he failed to buy at a price that was the lowest it would ever be
The algorithm he followed wasn't looking for that, but it happened anyways.
The point isn't that this is the best you can do with perfect information
The blog post could've fooled me. Between the implication that DCA is generally unbeatable and his talks about market timing in general, I'd expect it to do more than shoot down an obviously-flawed strategy while covering up its flaws.
My strategy ("skip the bubbles"? idk a good name) also matches opt-out's post better than buy-the-dip does, as buy-the-dip always buys one wobble before the stock's bubble bursts.
ulyssessword
27d ago
Should be easy to show why and score a black eye on Big Dollar Cost Averaging.
Trivial observation: If you have perfect information, your strategy should not do worse than one that ignores it.
There are two errors he's making1: He's buying when a drop is forthcoming, and failing to buy at a price that's the lowest it will ever be. The proper strategy looks like this. Every dollar buys the most shares that it would ever be offered (e.g. your December 1999 dollars will eventually be offered the 2009 price, so don't buy the microdip in January 2000. Your 2010 dollars will never get a better deal, so don't wait for 2012ish.).
I guess I'm more powerful than God? Feels weird.
1 If he was highlighting the mistake for other people instead of making it himself, I'd think he would show more analysis of exactly why it fails, instead of the raw fact that a flawed strategy can be bad.
ulyssessword
28d ago
I'm similar. I have a desktop and a chromebook, and that covers all of my needs. Before that, I had a beefy laptop that sat under my desk, plugged into a full-sized keyboard, a mouse, a bigger monitor with good ergonomics, and speakers. It baffles me when I see people with a dedicated space to work on a laptop that's set up like a laptop.
ulyssessword
30d ago
He argues that many of the proposed features of artworks that are allegedly worth appreciating, like the art's historical context or its position in an ongoing artistic dialogue, are essentially extraneous, and will only serve to hinder one's natural and immediate appreciation of the art's "sensory pleasures" (or lack thereof).
My problem with this is that historical context and position in a dialogue are worth considering, but they aren't art.
I've felt the weight of history behind some objects, and I've been profoundly moved by it. Those objects weren't paintings, sculptures, or any other form of traditional "art" in most cases. They were simple tools and practical artifacts that may have been through extraordinary circumstances, or not.
If you can get that feeling from something untouched by any artistic intent, then why is it considered a core (rather than incidental) feature of art?
ulyssessword
30d ago
Based and kumquat pilled.
ulyssessword
1mo ago
No bad tactics, only bad targets, maybe? That's pretty much #2
ulyssessword
1mo ago
I would also be curious what gets journalist to write things like these articles. You can read the article and by her own language realize she is writing in a specific style that she knows she doesn’t have the goods. But still rights the article anyway. Is it just needing a paycheck?
My take is that they get the idea for an article, research it, then write out their idea (regardless of their findings). That's very different from finding an interesting topic, researching it, then writing out their findings (regardless of their initial idea).
For example, Machine Bias could've come about like:
- There's a new recidivism predictor. Tech is bad and courts are racist, therefore this will make racist decisions in the courts.
- It shows some predictive power, and is well-calibrated (recidivism rate is approximately (20 + 5 * risk score)%, with almost-entirely-overlapping error bars between races). Maybe there's something about what it's replacing as well.
- Here are some outliers, some stories about racism, and a few charts and tables showing a complex measure nobody has ever cared about before or since. Voila, point 1 stands.
You sure about that? I know the law sets equal boundaries, but I have my doubts about the legal system doing the same.
More options
Context Copy link