ed-209

Batman costume != “unexpected events”

> projects will create hundreds of permanent jobs

See, the AI is gonna create jobs, not eliminate them lol. Now let us strip mine your hood G.

Putting aside my personal concerns and frustrations with the state of parental controls (it’s hell), what does the author propose here?

By his own admission the controls which companies have been pressured to implement thus far are incomplete / can be bypassed.

There is of course only one, complete solution that comes to mind - universal digital ID for all humans on the internet - which is a different kind of nightmare. But we can’t have that conversation because the author won’t stake out their position there.

Replace "training and instincts" with "incentives" and you may have the rudiments of an argument, though it's not clear to me what that argument is.

I suspect expectations of retirement had to be level set to account for the reduced standard of living / the necessity to work longer.

> this whole ageing conversation has been dominated by the Boomers, often blamed for the world’s problems or pitted against younger generations. A tad unfair.

I'm in my mid-fourties and until recently, it seemed logical & righteous to place blame at the boomers' feet. Today it seems a lazy and naive, ultimately serving to further atomize/neuter the next generation. I expect my comeuppance is imminent. Oh well.

Dang, and I can't edit it :(

not on principle (unless i was applying to work in HR) - recruiters are not the company ambassadors you seem to imagine but cogs in a small machine that you're not likely to encounter after onboarding.

i would treat it like a 504 error

Not necessarily. Imagine a health insurance provider even partially automating their claim (dis)approval process - it could be both lucrative and devastating.

A gun is not smart or magical but is nevertheless a powerful tool that can be scary depending on who is holding it. Accordingly, I worry less about my occupation and more about the moral character of those wielding it. Further i worry about "smart" people who have not been acquainted with the dark side of human nature facilitating bad actors.

Nothing stiffles my creativity so quickly as intrusive thoughts of marketability. I can follow the muse or the outcome, not both. I wonder how much of a role this played in the displacement of painting here and if writing may be subject to a similar fate.

The problem as applied to philosophy is particularly concerning to me since those errors become the framework for thought, but yeah its otherwise not terribly different from the architect who doesnt code, the professor who hasnt spent time in industry, the philanthropist who lives in a bunker, etc.

It's intuitive, that the pursuit of mastery demands sacrifice (in family life and beyond).

Unfortunately philosophical mastery would seem to require full participation in life (to fully appreciate the human experience), making this level of sacrifice a potentially self-defeating proposition.

why use a static seed on the random generator and could that be making this appear more interesting than it might otherwise?

As a former owner and synth head, I feel the DX7 was good for poorly simulating a broad range of superior instruments. Also it wasn't merely difficult to program - it made sound design a necessarily separate activity from playing due to the notorious programming UX. Revolutionary and a nifty museum piece.

Relating to it's influence on 80s music, this oft repeated claim is laughable. Tom Oberheim and the late Dave Smith had demonstrably greater influence with the OB-X* and Prophet lines reigning supreme and offering lasting sonic contributions.

You make an interesting point about the lack of incentive to protect others' private data - it may only hurt the subject of the data and leave a negligent company unscathed. But how might we shift the liability from those companies without encouraging regulatory agencies to maximize data theft?

Their actual problem would then seem to be this rather complex explanation to a simple question (ie. Where does your money come from / what are your conflicts of interest). Any time I've considered donating, I remember all the "this segment brought to you by ..." and figure they don't need me (and I don't need them).

Most compelling argument is to explain "why" not "what". It's what I strive for in commit messages - in order to reconcile changes with the original intent and enable identification of bugs created through misunderstanding.

But commit history gets messy quick...I have food for thought.

Something ironic about access to info on low quality food being behind a paywall. Anyway this isn't a whoopsie or a surprise - FDA is the most transparently criminal part of the whole ediface.