halr9000
- prompt adherence is really good
- it's somewhere between SD15 and SDXL at creating pictures of text
- aesthetic quality is good, but leaves some to be desired
Good :)
> The Economist Magazine, where factual snippets
I have nothing special for or against the mag, but I will point out that economists are famously known for disagreeing on huge things once you get beyond the law of supply and demand. Not every discipline of study has whole alternative schools of thought the way they do. Economists are closer to philosophists than most philosophists.
I really love economics! But I have no illusions at all that they serve up one and only one version of the truth like physicists. :D
> real, serious and long-standing economic changes
Ok, 100's of counterpoints: https://www.humanprogress.org/datasets/ (but check out the articles also, lots of great stuff on there.)
> starvation, war, and abundant death
Yeah, there's lots of that. Pre-panbdemic all the trends were in the right direction. This too shall pass.
Things aren't that abnormal in my area, and it's getting even better daily.
Why do you posit that life expectancy will continue to fall? Not sure it's rational to expect an extended reversal of the trends which have been on the increase prior to the past 2 years. Look at the charts and the analyses.
Precarious work? You may need to explain that one.
Sure, but these are temporary disruptions. Now it's true that the pace of change feels immensely faster than ever before, and I believe that's an observable fact. But we adapt. The incentives to do so are, sometimes, life or death. When faced with that kind of situation, some small % will sink into depression, perhaps never to climb out. I'm sure that some online magazine (which surely used to be known for its print version, but is no longer...) will write an extremely long piece full of anecdotes about the plight of the artist whose livelihood was destroyed by the evil AI.
But I assert that it will always be a tiny percentage of the whole, because the vast majority of people like to eat food and live in houses. Many of them will look at these new tools and make amazing new things. Many will go do other things. That's life, man.
I would expect that the greater debate on privacy will, over time, hopefully lead to some changes in how we are able to control the data generated by our bodies. Until that happens, I’m going to take the thing that saves my wife’s life with the potential for some shadiness or simple distaste at what may happen to her data, or, I might look at it as her voluntary consent which was fully given with her and my knowledge well ahead of time — helps to save others lives, and some loss of control of that data is actually quite noble.
As you might guess, I started at the abstract, but ended up at the concrete, and my wife really does have such a device, similar to your example. And I also work in big data analytics industry, and get involved in these sorts of discussions pretty often.
I don’t think we can have it both ways, or at least it is very difficult and we don’t have a great compromise solution.
So what if SO helped someone to get to the resume phase who perhaps shouldn’t be there? There’s only one way for them to figure that out, and it’s experience. Give them some constructive criticism and move on.
Play with the transfer amounts to suit your budget. This helps you not have to think about spending money, or if you have enough to pay rent that month.
Back to the furniture example from grandparent comment, I simply ensure that main has enough in it each month to cover the monthly expenses. HTH
Most of this is junk, but TBH the free e-books don't bother me one bit. I even like a few of the peddlers who deploy this tactc, if the content is any good.
I have zero illusions that enough people understand the free market to be patient and allow for this to happen. We need to teach more economics in grade school.
Yeah but people do grow up. And I don't know about you, but I've got some super long term relationships with some banks. They are in it for the long game.
> They can do that because so many people don't price compare anymore before going to Amazon.
"Alexa, reorder cat litter"
So, no, I disagree with your premise here. They can demand a higher price by way of providing a better overall service, end to end, by way of innovation and hard work. Sure, some of it is in fact laziness like you say, when viewed one way. Viewed another, I am willingly paying for that convenience.
Not to be tautological, but in a free market, this works as long as it works. Cheaper alternatives exist, no surprise there. But you need to take into account value, which is more than just price.
"Alexa, set 11 minute pasta timer."
But it's not. This line is reasoning is very outdated.
They have built a massive network of warehouses all over the country, and that's the physical presence that a state sales tax collection clause needs to come into effect. Amazon has been charging people sales tax in many states for a few years now. (I wish I had a number of states, but top jazzy to look it up.)
> Storing an IP for a limited time for security reasons is fine. Have rules in place for how this data is used and when it is deleted. Don't keep it longer than nessescary.
How long is necessary? What does limited mean? Does a regulator now get to determine what sort of algorithms I can use to protect my assets? Advanced persistent threats (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_persistent_threat) can exist over a very extended--and arbitrary time period! I'm in the security software industry, and we and our customers need to detect and react to these threats. That requires data which you simply cannot obtain an opt-in for. Sure, you put that in a posted privacy policy, but if you can only keep the data for 30 days, this means actual evidence of a crime might need to be thrown out.
But you can always install (or develop) another browser that might do this job better for you.
> If it was protecting your interests, it would be a toggleable setting that defaults to normalized behavior.
The problem with this view is that the vast majority of end users do not want, and in fact will never know about or use a new setting, and so the when doesn't move forward. This is the opt-in problem that Google is talking about. In politics, an analogy is called public choice theory.