Everyone can afford experiences. Experiences don’t have to be a trip abroad or jumping from hobby to hobby.

There are people with legitimate obstacles that prevent them from doing even the simplest enrichment activities, but exploring the world around you, asking questions about things you take for granted, seeing how long you can hold your breath, try a yoga pose, count your steps on the way to work and try estimating how many steps it will take you to go to the shop down the street… Opportunities for experiences are effectively unlimited.

Probably about as useful as not voting

Because one thing less useful than voting is not voting as a form of protest. And even less useful than that is encouraging others to do the same.

Voting one time may seem useless, but voting consistently in an informed direction and encouraging others to do the same ‘is’ useful. It’s just not obviously useful quickly.

The only thing useful about not voting is in the hope that things will fall apart more quickly and we can get to some good for collapse and rebuilding, but then what? Still don’t vote? Hope for a benign group that takes over and somehow does allow voting?

Most groups like this don’t have to be wrong about the data to be wrong about the interpretation. Did you know that on average, a person has one fallopian tube? That most crimes happen when I’ve cream sales are highest?

Making new friends as an adult and finding a girlfriend when you’re looking for one are two of the hardest things you’ll do in life. Take care of yourself and try finding things that interest you, but get out there and interact. Talk to people with the intention that an interaction is worthwhile even if it’s only in passing. Take some classes to learn something, not to pick a girl to home in on. Probably 90% of relationships people have are accidental or friend of a coworker or someone who noticed you actively involved in something that doesn’t have anything to do with what you’re actually doing.

Absolutely, you stop measuring the passage of time in days and years and start measuring it in experiences. When you’re young and everything is new it’s absolutely full. The 10th or hundredth time you’ve done something you handle it more easily but it also starts to seem like one ‘thing’.

Routine is the quickest way to looking back on life and feeling like it was the blink of an eye.

Not voting because it’s not a good harm reduction strategy is just another way of saying it won’t do any good so don’t bother.

If you are trying to present a nuanced argument against some specific reason ‘for’ voting, more power to you, but you are seriously coming across as a worthless bot put in place to recommend not voting wherever possible.

Still, go out and vote

I’m sure it will get there, but the biggest issue i see with the current models and implementations is that without good, or in some cases excellent, guidance, most can’t handle anywhere near a full codebase and even the best models are happy to take your question about fixing any particular task you throw at them back to square one with no regard towards how the existing platform is set up. Even for a relatively light codebase that it is currently building, it’s happy to scrap it start over in order to solve whatever potentially poorly worded issue you’re trying to track down. And that’s not even taking into account how quickly it can go from trying to solve an issue to nerfing tests in order to pass. Frustrated that things are no longer passing an expected integer test? Easily solved by allowing floats or nulls to count as passes, and damn if that isn’t a process to correct three issues deep after you’ve ‘validated’ that issue and it’s now being discovered down the line.

Fair points, though i disagree on the majority of objectively bad content being harmless. Anything on the Internet that leads people to feeling marginalized or ashamed or less than someone else is harmful. Even weight loss and beauty product ads are harmful in measurable ways. Having popularity and young kids looking up to you and using that admiration to to put people down and normalizing it is the worst kind of character and just because it’s freedom of speech and some content creators don’t do it still results in something equating to a cesspool where the less thoughtful creators can thrive.

I think it’s close to equal parts jealousy and legitimate distaste for rewarding popularity for popularity sake. So much of the toxic behavior of the popular cliche in high school makes it into the environment that it dilutes the legitimate utilization of the platform for making actually good content.

That, and the possibly justifiable hated for what some people are now considering, by extension, ‘good content’ when it all just ends up being reaction videos and meta content about content about content to the point where it’s just a bunch of rich assholes acting like rich assholes and that’s literally the content.

Honestly the worse trend I’ve seen are the channels that are effectively ‘bum fights’ with marginally less crude concepts. Let’s see how humiliated we can make my friends act for a tiny bit of money compared to how much I’m making is not, and has never been, a nice thing to do, and the platform has turned it into a lucrative job.

I don’t know, i mean he does have range, but i don’t think I’ve over seen him in a role where i was immersed in the character he was playing more than i consistently see it being Nick Cage playing the character as Nick Cage would play him.

I mean a lot of actors get typecast into specific roles you can’t unsee them as, but Nick is like a character that can’t seem to un-overlay his acting style from the character. Not unlike someone with an accent they can’t hide will always bring something potentially unintended to the character, he brings a ‘this is what this character would be like if we were in a universe where his personality was painted over the intended character’.

Good or bad, i don’t think he has a role where he can leave himself out of it, and i think he would have failed as an actor a long time ago if he was forced to.

Right, just like anyone could stop using anything they found objectionable or immoral and keep their mouths shut about it, but this is exactly the type of thing not to keep your mouth shut about.

Software that enable you to do something should at some point just do that. To get good at something, invest time and money into an ecosystem that takes a lot of both to invest in, shouldn’t arbitrarily use that as leverage against it’s users to impose it’s morals on them.

Sure she could switch to gimp, and arguably she should literally because of things like this, but that’s not something you can easily do with everything, and it’s worth calling out when a corporation leverages a virtual monopoly on something to force it’s users to comply with something like it’s judgement of content.

We’re lucky enough to have open source versions of a lot of things, but you don’t get anywhere simply voting with your wallet. Where you get somewhere is voting with a lot of people’s wallets.

I may be an ai. I read that as ‘not being able to count to the number r in strawberry’ and I immediately wondered how you would do that.

Then I realized that might be the perfect thing to start training it on by coming up with things like that in posts, as though that were a perfectly human thing to know how to do.

Nicholas cage

That’s going to be the bubble. When AI has to be able to actually pay for itself, no one is going to be able to afford it, and if you happen to be one of the companies that went all in any used AI to build your codebase and fire not devs and front line workers, you’re going to be the hardest hit. Possibly the only hope is that they saved enough from partial and didn’t pass any savings on to the customer (because of course they wouldn’t) that they can almost survive the actual unsubsidized token costs. But then you will be in direct competition with everyone else who can write a prompt with likely literally no differentiator outside of maybe name recognition in an industry.

Because the example just demonstrates an example of conditioning, but the implications are much wider. The idea is that one signal can be replaced with another, which could be beneficial or detrimental, could intentional or accidental, may or may not be long lasting, but mostly just applies to a lot of situations quite a lot different than the exact example but the example serves as a convenient, familiar shorthand for referring to it easily.

Because killing a leader without a plan for who will replace them isn’t very efficient. A leader, unless he is particularly skilled, is rarely string enough to actually have that big of an influence but it’s enabled by the institutions. The only way to change the institutions is weakening the ones you want to weaken.

Great point somewhat stated in the article, that AI is like an amplifier of talent, and that works both ways. Amplifying good skills is amazing, amplifying average skills is both good and bad. Amplifying poor skills can be catastrophic.

Like giving an experienced hunter a bigger gun might result in better outcomes or bigger game, but a bigger gun in the hands of someone who doesn’t know how to weild it just results in bigger holes in things you didn’t want holes in in the first place.

Normally a novice programmer would break things incrementally, but a poor understand of coding plus AI can hose things exponentially in ways that look like they’re almost working every step of the way.

Have you watched the Stephen King movie about that?

Probably because they thought physical discipline was an effective method of training at an impressionable age but was obviously only a method of punishment once you reached adulthood. Or maybe because enough of the people who made the laws could imagine themselves on the side of the prisoner, but none of them would ever be in the position of being a child again so there wasn’t enough self interest for that law to be different.

Basically probably no good reason, but just a misguided vague ‘nip it in the bud’ attitude carried over the generations.