flagrant_taco
There is usually a bigger of truth behind conspiracy theories. In this case there may be no reason to think the initial goal is to control what people are allowed to use energy for, but smart grid initiatives do open the door for that. The same automated systems that allow individuals to reduce their carbon footprint today could be abused to control people later.
Of course, why wouldn't you? If the assumption isn't that effectively unlimited power is available on demand you adjust use accordingly.
On sunny days with excess power maybe you charge and do laundry. On a stretch of cloudy days you avoid long periods of cooking or using large tools like sellers or air compressors.
Adjusting to our environment rather that chasing convenience is a very reasonable approach to makinh a real dent in reducing our environmental impact.
If someone were of the honest opinion that broad scale collapse was imminent I can only expect they would also not expect fame afterwards. Anyone sharing this opinion disingenuous is more likely to be sharing it for gain before the collapse that may never come, via book sales or speaking engagements for example.
How have you come to the conclusion that the author's conclusions are wrong?
Many in this thread have rightly pointed out that the author is speaking of the future which can't be know with certainty. Are you telling issue with the level of certainty the author seems to have, or do you fished with the argument of impending doom?
Nepotism and bias aren't the alternative here. If you require that decisions are driven by data and you don't have access to accurate data, you should default to doing nothing. If anything, nepotism and bias sneak in when decisions are made despite the fact that no accurate data is avaliable.
Looking at browser usage data from GA when Firefox specifically blocks it quite often is useless.
That 2% kind be breached, but the data doesn't accurately represent usage if Firefix is blocking GA in any meaningful numbers.
There is a real risk that avoiding topics or people one finds offensive can make a person less resilient. Its a totally reasonable response to the internet where you have the opposite problem of being exposed to more than you otherwise would have, but creating too tight of a bubble can have downsides.
The idea that the EPA would quietly agree to this is completely ridiculous. Dupont literally poisoned the water, denied and hid it, spun off a new company to shield itself from liability when finally caught, and the EPA was going to let them import 4m pounds of PFASs to the exact same area Dupont already poisoned. Even better the EPA only puts a pause on it after the agreement is discovered and citizens raise alarms.
My best guess is that this is a side effect of web being a field that's more often picked by new or less experienced devs.
Do you not see a difference in comparing post-USSR Ukraine with Germany while allied with the very much alive US? Hosting US military installations that house nuclear weapons is very different from hosting abandoned nuclear weapons of a state actor that no longer exists.
The entire scenario rewrites 30 years of history, everything would be different. Would Russia have invaded? Would Ukraine have made itself more of an international player if it were on the list of nuclear powers? Would Ukraine have actually used nukes after an invasion? Could their allies have pressured Ukraine to avoid a nuclear war? Would Russia be in the same position or is today if Ukraine left the USSR as a nuclear power?
It is worth noting that many countries have poured money, weapons, training, and in all likelihood special forces combat troops into Ukraine. Ukraine clearly has the numbers and devotion to fight a long, deadly fight that has in some areas devolved into WWI-era trench warfare.
It isn't as simple as the Russians struggling with a 3rd rate power, however that is measured. Ukraine has the numbers and the will, allies provided resources/training/intel, and Ukraine had the tactical advantage of protecting their homeland rather than being the invading force.
Given that we're no way close to this and the power imbalance is already huge, we should be regulating how every person's data is used regardless of age.
Parents purposely allowing children to use these services is a much more clear indicator of sentiment, and as mentioned in the article users don't seem to mind allowing their children to use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc.
An early GPT-4 test ended up with GPT successfully solving capchas by tricking a TaskRabbit worker into doing it for them [1]. When asked by the worker if it was a robot, GPT decided to lie to the worker and claim it had a visual impairment that made it difficult to solve the puzzle. That sounds like a level of autonomy and social engineering skills that could be concerning to a reasonable person.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/gpt4-openai-chatgpt-taskrabb...
The fact is we don't know how current ML actually does what it does, we don't know what we'll have next month, and we wouldn't know how to recognize an AI or AGI if we developed one. The risks and unknowns are high, the default position should be to not develop the technology unless and until someone proves without reasonable doubt why we can and should do it, and how we'll do it safely.
That's not to say it must be deeper than the usual power plays and politics, but breaking an NDA doesn't seem to fit well fromwhat I've seen.
I also don't expect the government to do anything about the OpenAI situation, to be clear. Though my read is actually that the government had to be evolved behind closed doors to move so quickly to get Sam back to OpenAI. Things moved much too quickly and secretively in an industry that is obviously of great interest to the military, there's no way the feds didn't put a finger on the scale to protect their interests at which point they wouldn't come back in to regulate.
> Why you call him an evil shill? It sounds like he actually believed it.
> It's not evil to be wrong.
I was responding to this and making the point that we don't often allow it to be this simple. I raised the Germany example to make the point that most consider what the Nazis did evil regardless of whether they honestly believed in their reasoning that lead to genocide.
Both of these can be technically worked around. Config may be able to disable existing margin/padding classes and replace them with a custom set, and the groups feature helps especially for simple cases of referencing other elements.
In my experience though, as soon as config is meaningful modified or you elan on the more obscure features for groups, pseudo selectors, etc. the learning curve has just been moved from the dev who doesn't know CSS to the dev who doesn't know Tailwind.
Some of the Nazis may have honestly believed that Jewish people were the cause of Germany's economic problems, but I don't think many would claim they were anything less than evil.