Even for people who intend to use it in the future, there's a way to send a message with only a 30 day hiatus: if you really want, you can recreate the account with the same email address after 30 days, withe a clean slate. I'm between a slight rock and a hard place so cannot completely get out of OAI just yet, but I can manage 30 days without it.
Large corporations do not, and are not able to, respond to long term signals. One month is literally a third of a corporations's attention span (a financial quarter).
> And that message would be "We have a product so valuable/useful that not even their weak ideals and moral obligations could keep them away!"
Who knows, maybe within those 30 days you find that other offerings are good enough for your needs - I've largely moved over to Anthropic's Max subscription for all my needs, I don't even need Cerebras Coder anymore because Opus 4.6 is just so good.
Continually surprised by politicians wanting an OS to do what a parent should be doing. Why not just mandate that all devices with access control capabilities implement parental controls, and then mandate that all adults enable controls before handing a device to a minor? For devices that are incapable of user access control, the same rules as a knife, chainsaw or gun apply.
Only wealthy parents (upper middle class or better) have the time or energy to do anything other than work, put food on the table, and do basic child care.
Most parents lack the technical expertise to police digital devices.
This isn’t so heavy handed. The purpose of age signaling is so that a parent can set in one place an age, and then federal privacy protections under COPPA and state protections under the AADC kick in.
I've come to a similar conclusion. I now almost exclusively post under my real name online, and before writing something, I ask myself whether it's something I'd say to a person's face and whether I'm comfortable being quoted on it. If not, I look for a more neutral, stronger version of the argument I'm trying to make (stronger, as in strong enough to stand without rhetorical devices or fallacies), or, I qualify the statement as an opinion or something I consider to be a possibility.
I recently thought my keyboard was faulty. I take my notes on notepad, and after a recent update, sensed that keystrokes occasionally get missed or delayed. After a few days, I noticed it was not happening on Google Docs. On a whim I checked Notepad settings and found a new setting, enabled by default: "AI features > Copilot". I disabled it, along with "Autocorrect", and haven't had the problem since.
Notepad is supposed to be a bare bones editor -- where you go when everything else fails. The VI of Windows. If they want a rich editor, they should bring back WordPad.
I think React originally started with the opposite intent: a library where you can mount a component onto selected elements of the web page. The lock in only happened when React was used to develop SPAs, which effectively meant that React takes over the document root. With that came state management, and frameworks that managed the complexity of state were not far behind.
Indeed. I've gradually adapted a server rendered jquery and HTML site to react by making react render a component here and there in react and gradually convert the site. Works great.
Important to note that online culture isn't entirely organic, and that tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D has been spent by ad companies figuring that nothing engages the natural human curiosity like something abnormal, morbid or outrageous.
I think the end outcome of this R&D (whether intentional or not), is the monetization of mental illness: take the small minority of individuals in the real world who suffer from mental health challenges, provide them an online platform in which to behave in morbid ways, amplify that behaviour to drive eyeballs. The more you call out the behaviour, the more you drive the engagement. Share part of the revenue with the creator, and the model is virtually unbeatable. Hence the "some asshole from Twitter".
While some of it is boosting the abnormal behaviors of people suffering from mental illness, I think you’re making a false equivalency. Mental illness is not required to be an asshole. In fact, most Twitter assholes are probably not mentally ill. They lack ethics, they crave attention, they don’t care about the consequences of their actions. They may as well just be a random teenager, an ignorant and inconsiderate adult, etc., with no mental illness but also no scruples. Don’t discount the banality of evil.
In an adult (excluding the random teenager here), a lack of ethics, craving attention, lack of concern about consequences are actual symptoms of underlying mental health issues.
I'd argue a lot of this is rooted in a lack of self esteem, which is halfway to a mental health issue but not quite there (yet). The attention-seeking itself is the mental health issue. But it's kinda splitting hairs, these people are not fully mentally healthy either way.
I'm not sure whether this is an artefact of translation, but things like this don't inspire confidence:
> The "Modern Data Stack" (MDS) is a hot concept in data engineering in recent years, referring to a cloud-native, modular, decoupled combination of data infrastructure
> The typical golf course covers about a square kilometer. We have 40,000 of them around the world being meticulously maintained. If the same could be said for solar farms we would be almost 10% of the way there.
To me, it's one of many ways in which markets fail to allocate resources to the most pressing problems.
> Individuals don’t demand solutions to diffuse problems
Markets solve diffuse problems really well, people signal how much their section of the problem is worth solving and the market judges whether the overall problem can be solved cost effectively. Getting food to everyone is a diffuse problem for example.
Tragedy of the commons is different. Markets don't solve how to solve owning things in common and the usual market recommendation is not to do that.
It's probably easier to build a solar farm than prepare new land for hay production at this point.
Have you noticed the price of beef going up? It's because we're losing arable land to climate change. It takes a large number of high quality acres to raise a cow on grass.
That's been getting less and less feasible over time between extreme weather and erosion, so the cows get hay instead.
Hay production in places like Texas is disrupted by drought every few years, which means that ranchers have to sell their cattle at a loss or let the cows starve in the fields (assuming they don't die of heat stroke - the cows and the farmers).
After a few bad cycles like that, the ranchers start selling off land, so there aren't enough cows even in good years. Presumably this is bad for hay farmers, since demand attenuates down to what it would be in a drought year.
That brings us to 2026. It's pretty clear what's coming next.
I’ve looked into buying grassland. It’s in in the middle of nowhere. $25k/year is before maintenance and grid hook-up costs, both of which will be substantial in the middle of nowhere.
Also what is the capitol cost to stand up a golf course vs. a solar farm of equal size? I would imagine solar requires locking up a much larger investment.
I think you have misunderstood the term "tragedy of the commons", which is a phenomenon distinct from a market failure. Also, "markets allocate resources based on supply and demand" is, I believe an oversimplification one should not carry beyond Economics 101. If that were sufficient to explain the totality of market behavior, especially at large scale, then the remainder of the discipline of economics need not exist.
That comment throws all econ 101 in the wrong way. A land owners decision to build a golf course over solar farm is a decision based on competing land uses which are demand/supply for land and the potential services you could provide on that land. Which is why you don't often see solar farms or farms or power plants in the middle of cities...
I don't think its lack of land that is preventing 10% of our energy coming from solar. Do you really believe that without golf courses there, the land would be used for solar instead?
There is no magic hand, only a Tragedy of the Commons and greedy individuals doing whatever. (Federally, there is at present time little-to-no prosecution of fraudsters or tax cheats. Economically, it's basically The Purge.)
Appropriate regulations and enforcement is what is missing but ⅔ of country is brainwashed by billionaires and Fox News that "gubberment bad" and "regulations are communism".
Assuming we're even a semblance of a democracy in 2028, the US is about to see its biggest course correction since the New Deal.
I think this will include a return to a free market economy.
If I got to decide what that would look like, it'd involve a combination of claw-back of corrupt subsidies, an army of independent prosecutors, armed with the power of federalization, reorganization and secondary public offerings of reformed criminal enterprises. The "good guys" companies would only be subject to monopoly busting; their investors would not take as big of a bath.
The crazy thing is that, as I get older, I've found I've gone from the hot-head to the voice of reason in conversations like this.
Rapidly falling? Looks like it's hit an equilibrium since October, >=40% at this point is hilariously high and proves the point well enough.
> If I got to decide what that would look like, it'd involve a combination of claw-back of corrupt subsidies
I'm sure you're aware that the overwhelming majority of these go to agriculture. If you genuinely think whoever gets elected will be running on stopping those, that's blindly optimistic.
reply