I'll go against the grain but our capitalist way of life is totally incompatible with solving climate change. Likewise one country can't solve this problem alone. You need the whole world on board. I truly think the only real solution is a one world government truly working toward for the betterment of the planet and it's occupants. We all know that ain't ever gonna happen though so we're hosed.
Hey I grew up super environmental and I have plenty of hippie cred, but this statement gave me shudders "the only real solution is a one world government". Yeesh, yeah a single government, surely nothing could go wrong.
The Savior fallacy. With power more concentrated, the ability to avoid being impacted for those in power rises and rises and rises. How are incentives then aligned? I'm sure that having 10 million governments would be much better than having one to solve the issue.
I've had this thought too. And when I think about it in the big picture way, I don't think it doesn't need to be all that hard to solve. It's not like we're talking about like, you know, some huge slice of GDP or something. Yes, the price of fossil fuels effectively doubles. But we can create lots of jobs to make solar and nuclear and all these other solutions in the meantime.
An economy that seizes climate solutions can zoom ahead in terms of innovation, manufacturing, and enforcement. The changing climate is one of the biggest economic opportunities we've ever seen in human history, but somehow we've convinced ourselves that it's not only the worst non-opportunity ever but somehow would break capitalism. The richest man on the planet makes electric cars.
Let me guess, you think it’s somehow impossible that people like Trump and Musk would end up running this One World Government like Trey have done in the US because…reasons.
Are they led by Trump and Musk though? You've misinterpreted the meaning of the question. I didn't ask what countries would accept being led by a national demagogue. Also, would other countries accept being led by the leader of the countries you listed?
I can't say I know the AI research community well but I'd imagine OpenAIs alignment w/ the military would not align w/ the the personal philosophy of many.
typical tech bro - they don't want any government regulation and want all the federal dollars they can get for nothing in return. we shouldn't be giving tax payer money to any private or public profit driven corporation ever. Mind you that's also a libertarian principle but tech libertarians always leave that part off.
when people talk about a players I feel like a lot of times it's really just the person who knows the project best or maybe they wrote a lot of the original code so they have the best idea of how it works. My point being who's an A player in my opinion is not reflective of actual skill per se but rather other factors.
Knowledge of the domain helps a lot! But software engineering and dev tools are also domains that are transferable. I have outperformed coworkers with much more code domain familiarity because I had more engineering/debugging/tooling domain performance, or better ability to design and communicate etc etc.
knowledge is power and people don't always want to share. Maybe it's more reflective of my company culture but I've seen knowledge effectively hoarded and used strategically as a weapon at times.
It is visible everywhere. Some people hoard knowledge so that they stay important in the company. Some people hoard knowledge so that they can get more money from bug bounties. It is almost always about personal gain.
Of course there is no upside for spending time updating documentation unless it actually is part of your job description or there is legal requirement for company.
If you put knowledge in wiki, no one will read it and they will keep asking about stuff anyway.
Then if you put it there and keep it up to date you open yourself to a bunch of attacks from unhappy coworkers who might use it as a weapon nagging that you did not do good job or find some gaps they can nag about.
A substantial leap. Given that these are flying near military installations, wouldn't the most plausible explanation be that these are test flights? What data would be gathered from low altitude that could not be aggregated from the myriad other sensors in our environments? Or from satellites, etc.?
Seems like the U.S. military has taken to heart that in any near future conflicts, forces of any branch will need to be heavily augmented by drones for reconnaissance, offense, and defense. So, if that's true, I would expect any military site at which personnel are trained to be flying drones constantly. And it serves them no benefit to let everyone know what they're doing. If the U.S. public is "read in", so are all potential adversaries.
100% hear this and I know as a developer at a big company I have no say over the business side of things but there's probably something to be said for we should all push for clear logical business processes that make sense. Take something like a complicated offering of subscriptions, it's bad for the customer, it's bad for sales people, it's bad for customer support, honestly it's probably even bad for marketing. Keep things simple. But I suppose those complexities ultimately probably allow for greater revenue as it would allow for greater extraction of dollars per customer e.g. people who met this criteria are willing to pay more so we'll have this niche plan but like I outlined above at what cost? Are you even coming out ahead in the long run?
wow oh wow what a great comment. I think the reason dance went away is a lot of men engaged in predatory behavior while drunk, that is that would approach the woman from behind and "grind" himself on her which is really just sexual assault.
I often think about how we replace things with technology and say it's better. Bread is another example in my opinion. Towns used to have bread makers, well respected and well paid. Now, at least here in the USA we replaced the bread makers with machines. We got rid of the bread makers and ultimately replaced them with engineers who design the machines and repair men. Even they've been replaced, once designed there's no need for the engineer and it's often cheaper to buy than repair so the repair man too went away. What we're left with is subpar bread. How is any of this progress?
I suspect you can make better bread more consistently with machines.
But that would requires trying to make good bread. Not trying to make something passable for an American (and barely edible for a French) with the highest profit margin.
