iamthirsty

As a local, most of it is actual locals, often bringing out of town friends, but the core is always locals.

You should come to Miami. Some people start the night at a normal club, go to a rave at Factory town, and meet the sunrise at Space, all in one night.

I'd like to see any reasonable math behind this idea.

> It's idiotic. Just phone it in directly and go pick it up.

I don't have a car at the moment — am I just never supposed to eat outside of home-made food anymore? I've done that math many times, Ubering both ways to a restaurant is even dramatically more expensive than a delivery service.

If you don't live in an extremely walk-able place, sometimes it's the only option.

The good 'ol gas-lighting. Nice.

> Hard disagree. The idea that the machinery your life will depend on might be made with half-assed safety in mind is definitely not part of the deal.

It's definitely built in. The Apollo LM was .15mm thick aluminum, meaning almost any tiny object could've killed them.

The Space Shuttle flew with SSRB's that were solid-fuel and unstoppable when lit.

Columbia had 2 ejection seats, which were eventually taken out and not installed on any other shuttle.

Huge risk is inherently the deal with space travel, at least from its inception until now.

It's crazy to think that $29.5m x $19.99 (old smallest price) is $589m. That's just a starting point for revenue. Wild.

We used spreadsheets to manage offices -- there is about 15 separate offices -- complete data set (clients, analytics, call logs) and each sheet has many, many different formulas interconnecting all the sheets in the book.

We use Google Sheets, as we changed from Office at the beginning of this year, and 10-15 times a day my tab crashes on Chrome from just existing, let alone when trying to do any operations.

It's a mess, and I'd rather build a simple web app to replace it, but don't have the time, approval, or financial resources to make the switch. So instead of letting me improve 100+ peoples daily workflows, we just suffer.

Go spreadsheets!

It does, but like I said most people just automatically buy new bonds, instead of actually removing the money from the Government.

It's both, although an extremely low percentage of people, IIRC, actually "cash out", most just roll the funds into a new bond once the previous one matures.

> Nobody's ditching the dollar. However Saudi Arabia and China significantly reduced their investment in US bonds lately. Also notice that the interests on US debt come dangerously close to the whole of US government revenue.

Revenue for 2023 was $4.4T[0], debt servicing cost was $624B. This year it's projected to be in the ~800s.

[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216928/us-government-rev....

> If you cannot replenish this ATP and GTP you’ll be weaker the next time you get an infection and be sicker in general.

This is wrong.

You're all over this thread spreading incorrect information.

> Then they need to stop saying that Covid causes these things.

Well, if it does cause these things, and it's looking like from the literature that's the case, they wouldn't actually need to stop saying that.

First line of the study:

> Long COVID, as currently defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other authorities, is a symptomatic condition that has been shown to affect an estimated 10-30% of non-hospitalized patients after one infection.

Doesn't say 100%.

I had COVID five times over the past four years. Last three times barely any symptoms.

> It’s kind Wrong to say that Covid causes these things. Because if Covid alone caused these issues then everyone would have these issues after Infected.

However, this is not sound logic. As stated in the study, it causes these different issues in some percentage of cases, not all.

> I consistently wear one in shops, especially shopping centres.

...I don't know how I feel about this, honestly. I respect everyone's right to be as cautious how they want in their life and dress how they choose but after 4+ years I think those who haven't returned to not wearing masks 24/7 outside the home are being a little, uh -- I guess a word for it would be over-dramatic.

> COVID-19 can cause brain damage including loss of brain tissue, small blood vessels, and merged brain cells. In some patients, perhaps many, there is also damage to the immune system.

Now that, I did not know. Crazy how much damage COVID can actually do.

> Celesta Capital, Rocketship.vc, Artha Select Fund and Artha Venture Fund, and existing investors Mayfield India, Pi Ventures and Speciale Invest.[0]

Not making an argument about off-shore work, but to be fair a lot of the funding came from out-of-country.

—

[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/catherinewang/2023/10/17/indian...

"YoutTube" — Nice.

In this context, "luxury" is being used in it's main definition:

> "the quality possessed by something that is excessively expensive"

In your cited source:

> Some people say that Netscape is less stable, others that IE is less stable

> My counterpoint: if your product is simply a ChatGPT wrapper, you have no moat.

A really low barrier to entry isn't always necessarily a good thing, as someone can usurp your business relatively quickly.

Yeah, I feel similarly. It's an extreme over-generalization making a relatively intentionally proactive statement using very vague anecdata.

> Just keep the experts around.

This has always been a thing with small business, especially in the age of higher interest rates + rising wages + end of VC over-spending era.

Thanks for your reply! Couple thoughts:

> How someone structures themselves around that conflict is the signal. Disclosing potential conflicts of interest is the ethical bar and that has been done.

This is kind of the problem though, it hasn't been done. Graham, my example in the post, didn't know YC invested in OpenAI. The previous board didn't know about Altman's ownership of the Startup Fund. His growing investments were, for most of them, published on the WSJ — yesterday.

> Whatever the real reason for the original OpenAI’s board to ouster Sam, the current board has found no wrongdoing on Sam’s part and crucially made no request for him to cease investment activity.

The original reason was a lack of trust, and the original board was pushed out so he could return. Of course the current board, one built from it's foundation to be much more receptive and docile to Sam's activities and statements.

> It is possible for Sam to take both positions.

> 1. Not taking financial gains from OpenAI so that his decisions are guided by building safe AGI

> 2. Investing in companies that are betting on trends he has the most conviction and knowledge about

The whole point here is that the second contradicts the first. If you're still directly making money off OpenAI's decisions & deals, the hand-waving of "being guided by building safe AGI" and not money ceases to be trust, because there are clearly billions at stake for Altman.

> we feed a narrative that has little explanatory power and perpetuates unrealistic expectations on how life in a position of power works.

The thing here is, Sam could realistically be an altruistic monk, not driven by any financial incentive when it comes to AI. There are a ton of different options, if he wants to live up to the standard he set for himself.

For example, putting investments into a trust that have to do with AI, not investing in related companies at all, putting a majority of his wealth into a Bill & Malinda Gates-style charity — the list goes on.

If had not tried to tell everyone he's doing this for the good of humanity and not money, he could take a multiple million $ salary + a huge personal stake in OpenAI and no one would bat an eye. It's the fact that he himself is position his image to be one thing, which is not the case.

Honestly was a typo, I was actually aware of the type of reactor. People make simple mistakes sometimes, especially while typing fast. Fixed in post.

Thanks for your reply! Couple things:

> Which clearly carries the implication that this was an inarguable firing for misdeeds. In this context, it does not matter if being asked to make a choice is technically firing. The main point is that this is a rebuttal of the narrative put forth by Helen Toner.

I actually agree with Paul Graham's post — totally reasonable thing to ask someone to do, and I didn't agree with the replies to his post. I tried to point out what happened — he posted the image and people didn't believe him — rather than how I felt about that specific topic. Arguably could've done better, however.

> The Gist of the critique is that there are deals between OpenAI and enterprises that Sam Altman has an investment in. It is not uncommon for individuals to be in decision making roles in one company while it does dealings with another in which they have a financial interest.

> It is not enough to establish that this connection exists for it to be a story. There needs to be some suggestion and evidence that there were decisions that were improperly influenced by the person with the conflict of interest.

> If you are alleging that Sam Altman improperly influenced the negotiation with Reddit for data

I highly recommend you use archive.today, or whatever means to read the WSJ articles (even a paper copy, if it's in there), because the assertions about impropriety or influence of deals originally stems from those two articles. I didn't just claim that with no evidence, I was highlighting statements and assertions already made.

Obviously not, but as I state in the article he has plead:

> “He owns no stake in the ChatGPT developer, saying he doesn’t want the seductions of wealth to corrupt the safe development of artificial intelligence, and makes a yearly salary of just $65,000.”

According to OpenAI themselves.

So he takes a “low” salary and no ownership as to, according to him and the company, not influence his decisions in the pursuit of financial gain — yet that’s a complete omission of the whole truth.

I’ll stop short of calling it a flat-out lie, but a mischaracterization of reality for sure.

> let's dissect actually why Sam is still evil.

I never said Sam is evil, nor anything close.