Given the extent to which the copyright system has benefited corporations and publishing companies to the detriment of individual authors and the general public, I'm constantly surprised that it still has many apologists.
As we don't live in a world where the rich patronize the arts some sort of copyright system is the only way authors and artists are gonna make a living doing their thing. ...though I suppose proponents of Universal Basic Income (UBI) would disagree, but between the abolishment of copyright, the institution of UBI, or a 7 year old child being hit by 7 lightning strikes and 7 meteor impacts and surviving; the latter seems the most likely.
People imagine poor author having their thing stolen rather than poor author that corporate takes IP from by contract agreement (and if you don't do that, you don't get the job), then abuses for 70+ years
I usually relegate the agent to code, I do the git part/put the patch together. Git is an excellent tool to review the changes granularly and find potential weaknesses.
I've come to the point where, if the agent makes a wrong assumption about the code base with fresh context, I consider that the code is not obvious enough about it's intent.
I think you're right broadly, but when that wisdom is applied to e.g. how many dildos will be thrown at WNBA players, I don't know how much actual value is created.
The unfortunate answer is that the US seems to be very bad at fighting regulatory corruption which allows small parts of the market to buy laws which give them a moat. Rinse and repeat over the last half century and you get to the situation we're in.
In no way shape or form is the medical industry in the US a free market, it's one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the economy. Remember when the government wanted to make purchasing health insurance mandatory? Forcing employers to pay for their employees health insurance greatly distorts the market. And many other things...
By the way, as much as people complain about the profit seeking motives of insurers, many of them have been performing abmysally in the last six months. As it turns out, our current system is bad for just about everyone.
In Romania the employer takes a cut from the employee's salary and gives it to a government agency for the health insurance (some thing with income tax, social security (pension), etc). I think this is happening in other European countries as well.
Some employers also offer as a bonus a sort of subscription at a private clinic, so you can see a private doctor or have an operation for a lower price or even for free.
In the USA the government health programs for people in low incomes, children and pensioners cost about as much as a typical European single payer health system. Then tax payers get to pay to be gouged by health insurance companies to get any cover for themselves.
In this market, neither the producer nor the consumer are responding to price signals and often neither knows what anything costs. The Payer (literal healthcare industry terminology) does but isn't producing nor consuming the service.
This is why this isn't a free market. It's not about regulation, it's about the system being divorced from responding to market dynamics.
There are degrees of freedom, but within the American framework, medical care is on the less-free end of the spectrum.
Aside all the insurance stuff, you cannot open an MRI imaging lab or similar without a letter of need from the local government. The supply side is quite literally gated by existing players in the market (via campaign bribes and similar).
Just to tack on, dentistry is an example of a somewhat freer market than 'healthcare', and veterinary care is an example of an even freer (though somewhat different) medical service.
Interestingly, it seems from these statistics the median wage for individuals with a Master's is lower than a Bachelor's. I wonder if that's because of immigrants who pursue higher education for visa reasons skewing the data.
Anecdotally, many people get a bachelor's degree to check a box for job applications, whereas many people get a master's degree because they love the field and/or are afraid to leave school.
My friends and I who have a bachelor's degree in CS make more money than my friends who have or are working towards master's degrees in CS, because the former are working in the private sector and the latter are in academia making peanuts.
Other possible reason could be many or most Masters degrees not conferring additional pricing power, and those people’s Bachelors degrees also confer lower pricing power.
Edit: Another possible reason that Masters degrees were less common in the past, so the Bachelors pay statistics skew towards people with more work experience in their higher earning years, whereas the Masters pay statistics skew towards younger people with less work experience.
Masters seems to be a common theme in a few lower paying expansive fields like social work and education. I don't think that someone with a masters is typically making less in the same field all else equal.
Yes, people have likened pre-LLM Internet content to low-background steel.
If in the hypothetical future the continual learning problem gets solved, the AI could just learn from the real world instead of publications and retain that data.
reply