Let's also imagine an alternative reality where some reasonable percentage of the $2.5T in current year AI spending was instead invested in the "general intelligence" researchers we already have for the same purpose. I think it's a pretty reasonable expectation that 1) they'd probably make more progress and 2) that money would help a lot more people in the process (through jobs and economic activity).
We shouldn't use the word "species" lightly with hominins. There's no accepted way to properly classify archaic humans.
For example, some paleoanthropologists classify most archaic humans as h. sapiens. Anatomically modern humans become h. s. sapiens, neanderthal become h. s. neanderthalensis. This incorporates the middle pleistocene hominins from mainland Asia pretty well to boot. Many of those same people also use the "conventional" binomial terminology when they're not making a very specific point, so you can't just look at usages to understand where they're coming from.
There's also a hundred other classifications, some giving neanderthals their own species, others including it with heidelbergensis, and so on. None of them has clearly "won" and probably won't while we keep publishing "new" transitional forms every couple of years.
Sure... and it would help if there was more consistency in general.
But given that there isn't, we should at least maintain internal consistency. That's what I was commenting on above. You can't use one conceptual framework for Neanderthals/Eurasia and another for Sapiens/Africa. It's confusing... and you end up with statements that are essentially false.
Neanderthal and Sapiens exist approximately concurrently. The "classic neanderthal" form doesn't predate sapiens. It only predates Sapiens if we define "Neanderthal" from the point of divergence. If we do that, we need to define Sapiens the same way. It can't be the establishment of a founder population for one and the emergence of a distinct form for the other.
I'm not advocating for one system or another... or even for the establishment of one consistent system necessarily.
Valve's most anticompetitive rule is that steam keys you distribute outside steam shouldn't be sold for less than the price on steam. Would that Apple were the same.
The unitasker advice is also a bit difficult for inexperienced people to follow, from what I've seen. A stand mixer is a great multitasker on paper, whereas a speed peeler does exactly one thing. Yet the latter will be used massively more often than the former in most kitchens. Probably the most used tool in my kitchen (after knives and cutting boards) is the kettle, another unitasker.
I generally agree with that and there are some small kitchen appliances I don’t use often but when I need them I need them. Funnily an electric drip coffee maker is one of the things I somewhat regret replacing after a kitchen fire but I think insurance and may be handy for company at some point.
How can you possibly know which type of repo you're in ahead of time? My experience is that "temporary" code frequently becomes permanent and I've also been on the other side of those decisions 40 years later.
This is a huge part of how SV as a whole works. People figure out what works and point out how to do things better at their next roles. It's mostly a good thing. The main downside is that it exacerbates tendencies to cargo cult apply solutions for problems that come from a particular organizational scale to orgs without them.
If you go a bit farther back, we all ultimately come from the same lizard-like amniotes, newly emerged onto land from amphibious ancestors. It just took dinosaurs and mammals a little bit to evolve out of the "four-legged monster with teeth" body type.
No, the TSA exists because 19 people hijacked 4 flights and succeeded in crashing 3 of them into various important buildings in the US on 9/11/2001.
Private planes are just as capable of crashing into buildings as commercial jets. The TSA has picked up some ancillary public safety functions over the years, but their raison d'etre is to prevent hijackings.
No, the TSA exists because politicians felt they needed to be seen doing something after 9/11. If there were actually much political will for it to fulfill actual security purposes, it surely would’ve been reformed after it’s continually abysmal performance on security audits.
>if it was a jobs program, it would be way better staffed..
You're saying it's not comparable to the size of the New Deal, the biggest jobs program ever in the US.
That doesn't disqualify it from consideration as a jobs program as there are many jobs programs much smaller.
Adding 60k to ~3 million is significant because it's permanent. These are low skilled workers (and security theater as you astutely say) mostly concentrated in large cities.
Whereas the New Deal was temp jobs that disappeared once grants and funding disappeared.
In terms of menace potential, any private plane will lose to a van full of fertilizer and a baddie intent on causing destruction. It's a matter of scale.
Little planes, like this one [1] just don't do damage on the same scale as airliners.
No argument though, just saying it's a hard problem, and the scaling issue makes it somewhat awkward to deploy security resources in proportion to the threat.
I don't have a solution. I'm not exactly thrilled with the current setup, but I try to stay quiet since I can't think of anything better.
Government building codes already anticipate the "van full of fertilizer" attack, as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Federal building security is a separate matter though, with its own agency called FPS that predates DHS and TSA by decades.
reply