alexashka

We should just give the power to people with the most money who pay politicians to give them tax cuts and to not do anything else.

That's VERY GOOD.

Right? Right.

Just need to setup some concentration camps to purity our race of the vandals.

Your struggle is my struggle.

I've just played it for a couple of hours today - it is very good.

The graphics, the voice acting, the puzzles - top notch. It scratches that chess itch really, really nicely. The need to plan ahead a bit, seeing forced moves, moving different pieces to the right places.

You're right.

My brain must have blocked out the 'cadence' (oh the corpo speak!) of corporate dev out of self preservation.

Most apps people actually use will look fine because there's a team of mobile devs in all big companies who get paid to keep up with Apple breaking their apps every year with their 'updates' (among other things).

I mean, don't expect advanced features like consistent smooth scrolling, non-broken UI, absence of animation flickers, cloud sync that works consistently even for paid apps developed by Apple or anybody else but other than that :)

> We kind of do know because it's basically what happened after 9/11. We spent $8T+ on a 20 year war to kill over a million people in vengeance that really didn't do anything else

The 'we' in your first sentence is not the same 'we' that is in your second sentence.

I don't think you've done this intentionally but this kind of talk is how propagandists conflate what the masses want and do with what people in power want and do.

This conflation is hugely problematic - it's like saying sometimes we go to the movies, sometimes we murder children. No, no, 'we' are not murdering children, some people are murdering children and those people are a problem.

> It is also completely screwing up the global economy, and most people barely understand what it is and what's happening

What is screwing up 'the global economy'? LLMs?

Journalists fear mongering and making sure the hoi polloi know their place as powerless pawns in a game they couldn't possibly understand is a constant.

They know what they're doing, the people who fund them know it and the people with half a working brain cell sooner or later hear someone like me and go 'oh, that explains it'.

It's much simpler than some mythical cycles - manufactured 'mass stupidity' is a conscious, deliberate, ongoing choice.

It used to be religious organizations, then it was newspapers, now its social media platforms. The playbook has been the same for thousands of years - nothing has changed.

To save everyone some time - the playbook is you're cattle, I'm shepherd. I'm master, you're slave. It's not anymore complicated.

The bit 'educated' people miss is that most people would love nothing more than to be the master (freedom they call it? American doublespeak). They dislike being slaves, not the concept of slavery.

Anyhoo.

There is no 'we'.

> But all these strategies for making startups more powerful have one thing in common — or more precisely, have to obey one constraint. They all have to make things better for the customer.

Good thing we have venture capital to alleviate that constraint by enabling selling a dollar for 50 cents.

Can you imagine a football fan going up to Ronaldo and saying hey, I saw an interview you did last week - I think you may be lost in the weeds there with your training regimen and outlook. I want to let you know - I remain a skeptic.

I mean, when you start scoring goals like you did 5 years ago Ronaldo, but until then, I remain a skeptic about that training regimen.

As for misinterpreting - maybe you're misinterpreting. Or maybe it's unproductive and dare I say presumptuous to reply to people you know nothing about with 'you're probably wrong and I'm probably right'. Do you do that in real life? Working out great, I can only assume given you've adopted a similar approach here, or?

Sure, among all these other people doing 'incredible work' for 30+ years publicly, well into their 50s, John Carmack sure is a disappointment by comparison.

They created a mess in 2020 and hopped on over to a job at FAANG and now a fresh batch of Waterloo graduates want to do the same - maintaining somebody else's turds is beneath a Waterloo graduate on his way to becoming a manager who never touches code ever again :)

So it goes.

Yes, but also remember what happened to Mark trying to do a currency?

You're giving him too much credit if you think he figured anything on his own - this is the guy who thought 'metaverse' was a good idea.

> There needs to be a technological solution

You mean Minority Report?

> and I’m someone who is talking about how power actually works in society

He also does this. That's... the entire point of the comparison.

Nice try. Shall we continue to where I start copy/pasting an LLM explaining it to you until you can't pretend to not understand any longer and move on to some other bad faith tactic? I want to see your most advanced bad faith attempt - deflection and playing dumb are for juniors. Show me something good.

You're not beholden to make any effort to understand me or anyone else, that's a given.

Here is what an LLM thinks about what you've done:

> The “we” is doing a lot of rhetorical work: it turns what could have been stated as “the U.S. government doesn't openly admit this” into the much broader and more dramatic “we Americans are collectively unwilling to admit it.”

I hope that helps. Or is the LLM also nitpicking and failing to understand your 'perfectly clarifying' remarks? Feel free to copy paste and ask an LLM yourself, all I did was ask it 'who is the 'we' referring to?' and copy pasted original parent and your reply.

Is that supposed to work?

When you get caught stealing candy, saying 'look, he stole more than me!' doesn't work. Were you raised in a human society? I thought people learned these things when they were 7.

You're not getting it.

There is no 'we', there is no 'America'.

These are propaganda terms. When you use them, you bolster the people who mindlessly repeat slogans and frustrate those who don't. It's a lose-lose.

VC was good when a guy with no technical skills raised 10s of millions of dollars. That was when VC was good, right?

This guy has been grifting his entire career but it's those other people who are the problem, guys!

He's not wrong about VC but he's another Chamath - a guy who grifts a thing to death, moves on to the next grift and goes 'look, that grift I'm no longer doing - it's bad, very bad!'

> an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists

We're all ashamed, apparently?? What do they call this, projections of a guilty conscience?

> they are largely choosing to have less children

If the suicide rate rapidly increases, will you also say they are largely choosing to have less life?

Nothing to see here, just choices.

> So by definition, given it's a choice - women are happier.

So by definition, given it's a choice, people who commit suicide are happier.

I don't think I can do any better than you by asking the most advanced LLM to be as pedantic as possible whilst not addressing anything actually being said.

Congratulations, I suppose?

> Do you think average human cares about "our species is going extinct" stuff?

Yes.

> If not, why couldn't they be happy at the same time?

The same reason you can't be happy if I stick a fork in your eyeball.

You'll get back to a similar 'happiness' baseline after a while but we can all agree you would've been better off with 2 eyeballs. If you go 'well, akshually' as you are doing now, I'll stick a second fork in your remaining eyeball.

If you mind me sticking forks in your eyeballs, you should also mind society that makes people not have children.

Whatever 'well, akshually' you invent - it's deeply unconvincing.

Name one species that is happy whilst rapidly going extinct.

The fertility rate in China is 1.

The fertility rate where I live is 1.21.

1 in 5 adult women where I live are on prescription anti-depressant medication.

For comparison - the fertility rate under Stalin - the uber evil bad guy as we all know was between 3 and 4.5.

> but is still trapped in a subjective state where the outside world is a constant, terrifying threat, and the only way to deal with it is constant self-reassuring pretence and delusion

Isn't that just most women, most of the time?

They don't because they know it'd only make it worse.

They are being responsible, by not doing anything - it's not the job of 'the media' to ride in like a knight in shining armor and save the princess (citizens) from the dragon (bad politician).

The real world is not a children's fairytale.

If you think at the level of a child - you can only spot a problem, you are not equipped to talk about solutions.

> Doesn't that prove too much?

No :)

Philosophy departments are like economics departments. They engage in long, complex, useless theoretical discussions that have nothing to do with reality whilst pretending that they are connected to reality.

This has caused a lot of people to waste years of their lives trying to understand what the hell is going on and many to mindlessly propagate idiotic, harmful ideas these departments 'teach'.

Anyone that talks of 'consciousness' and how it's baffling is in the midst of being misled by philosophy and/or neuro-'science' departments, much like anyone who even mentions free markets is being misled by economics departments.

It's only bold if you don't know anything about the subject matter.

How many books one would purchase from the philosophy section of a book store have you read multiple times and what were they?