monknomo

oof the sidebar on mobile is killing me

Deontic - `Relating to or expressing moral duty or obligation`

Deontology - `normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong`

It's very common to build a fence on your own land, even if your neighbors have a fence?

Like my neighbors have a fence, I have a fence, there is like a 1' alley in between them, everything is on the respective owner's land, and that would definitely work even if your neighbor is the government.

If fence integrity is important, you need your own fence. Otherwise your fence is as good as your least interested neighbor.

yeah, you're down to like 3/4 a career left, it makes sense that you feel that way. Less runway ought to feel different.

I do agree that a safe 'next' is unclear. But I also think if ai truly hits all knowledge work as hard as it might we're looking at up to 50% unemployment. Frankly there is no point career planning at all in that scenario. We will all have much larger problems.

And if it doesn't, then pivoting to some field with a combination of rewarding work and 'enough' pay seems sensible enough.

being funny and charismatic are something it is possible to practice, same as lifting weights. From what you say, sounds like a high leverage thing to look into

Well said! 5 years ago I could have a pretty solid picture of what my career would look like through retirement.

Today, unclear what that would look like as well as unclear if the career will even exist that long.

One sunny spot I have is that life is very long. I think I have 1.5 careers left in me, and a full pivot is alright. I've been talking with older folks, and loads of people have historically done giant pivots at midlife.

should be a like a milk bottle deposit scheme, pay $30 up front, get $10 back on disposal

I see no reason why every company would have a staff ops researcher, or why such a position would have a better grasp of underlying math beyond the narrow slice that directly benefits the company. Why do you think that would happen?

this is probably a personal problem, but sometimes I get turned around on 'fun making a game' vs 'making a fun game' and I have the idea that ai elides this distinction even further

some folks say that to have good times, you must have bad times; bad times create good times.

When you look at data around economics what you find instead is that good times create good times.

you want stability, but not stasis. you hella do not want punctuated equilibriums

I'm right there with you.

Renaming after this guy?

Miami?!

I prefer to google on duck duck go

oh I had one of those, it was choice

zfs + solaris zones were amazing

if any android pms or execs read this comment, it should be like a slap in the face. a scathing indictment of the state of their product.

just hang their heads in shame and walk into the sea

Probably this is after the italian word for singing

yes, this is a very helpful approach. I take a similar approach, partly because I find bringing up negative directions seem to bring the undesired action/direction into the agent's view and makes it more likely that they will go there

a company is liable whether it acts via ai, an army of people, an army of dogs, or a purely mechanical machine, should it do harm.

Why would an ai with a mind remove liability from the company? why would an ai without a mind remove liability from the company?

In both cases, that actions the ai takes are at the direction of the company, for the company's interests, seems preposterous to me that liability terminates at ai.

ant+ is a garmin protocol that is very common with fitness gadgets and in the bike world. It's a bit like bluetooth, but lower energy usage.

there were substantial crashes and booms during the gilded age as well, it wasn't uncommon to go bust and lose a house before the great depression. The panic of `73 is pretty comparable with the great depression, for example

wow, I hope you two have connected

right, this comes close to rejecting the frame, which I think you could fairly do.

viewing npc as a category of person is inherently an ego driven, narcissistic way of looking at things. It is a viewpoint that lacks a theory of mind.

This essay implicitly supposes that the npc has a mind + motivations and that those motivations are more important to the npc than the player character. I'd extend it to say that if you are an npc you are a player character; you're just in a different game. Village Blacksmith Simulator, where you make horshoes, fend off pickpockets and sometimes a hero's dragon fight flattens your shop and you start over.

The flaw is assuming the player character is always the same.

have you considered seeking treatment? I personally have had some spells like you are describing, and generally white knuckled through. I tried medication for the last one, and I'll be darned if it didn't work pretty well.

manually scrolling before every widget loads should cause a full page refresh.

zooming in should cause a full page refresh

you know a pretty fair majority of men are working in white collar office work, which is directly comparable in terms of public facing and social careers?

real loosely, something like 1/3, 40% are in these blue collar fields, and even in those fields there are enough sales and similar roles that prefer better appearances.

It sounds like you are describing a problem with the San Francisco dating scene, which does relate to a small subset of the SWE experience, but hardly covers anything close to the totality of being an SWE.

I think people, broadly, have driven life to be fairer, and that we should continue to do so

Nah, I remember back then, it was definitely intended to be derogatory to the cars, to asians, and to people who like the cars.

[what does the ftc say about it?](https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...)

    Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

what you are describing sounds like an oligopoly not a monopoly. A company cannot realize monopolistic benefits without > 50% control of a market. That's not to say there aren't benefits to a large market share, but they are different and we have different terms for them.