quibbler

"terror attack"

There is no law that says you have to enter a contract that only gives you the minimum requirements of the law. (ianal, though).

If you are unhappy with a contract, don't sign it.

How do you create such conditions if you are not the government? Who does the creating?

What does "embodied in the world as a living organism" even mean? Being embodied as a machine wouldn't be sufficient? Living organisms are "just" machines. I also don't see any reason why embodyment should be a prerequisite for thinking.

We know that machines with AGI are possible - humans are such machines.

Maybe you could discuss whether classical computers could achieve AGI, but I think overall the quest is to build machines with AGI, not necessarily in the form of classical computers.

The poor peole (on welfare) are mor likely to be trouble - they are on welfare for a reason.. Rich people pay good money to be shielded from trouble.

Do you have children? Did you get a cheap flat in the poor part of town? Many families pay higher rents, so that their kids have save streets and playgrounds to play in.

In my middle class neighborhood, I am not aware if a rich kid causing trouble. What trouble do you have in mind? Loud parties? Is the rich kid going to steal my kid's iPhones? I am talking about violence, pollution, syringes on playgrounds, stuff like that.

The funny thing is, by state funding cheaper living in expensive areas, you are just giving state subsidies to rich people. You subsidize services for rich people. Without that, they'd have to pay their service workers higher wages, so that they could afford living nearby or commuting. Or do you think rich people would juslt suck it up and do the cleaning themselves? They'd either pay more for services, or move away, which would lower the rents.

Socialism - reliably fails every time.

What if the "poor people" become a nuisance? Such articles always frame things in a rosy light, as if the evil rich planners are the only reason people are divided.

What if the poor people are alcoholics, drug dealers, petty thieves, antisocial people? Why should other people be forced to deal with them?

So why are you arguing? What are you arguig about?

You can protest whatever you want. But it should also be possible to fire you.

Protesting against something doesn't magically turn you into a superior person that is exempt from mundane things like being fired or being disliked.

Maybe that is why Slack has become so popular.

Also, do people just ignore your input, or do they feel they alrrady understood what you are trying to say? When I interrupt people, it is usually because I think I alrrady know what they want to say.

Maybe people in SV are just faster than average? Like the joke in Microserfs where the nerds watched video with subtitles in fast forward.

For ecample I also watch courses on Coursera on double speed, normal speed feels agoizing to me.

So perhaps talking double speed could also help?

I think it is also rude to expect people to listen for too long.

Because it doesn't make sense to protect anybody who mentions an incident of sexual harassment from being fired. Because then everybody would be protected from being fired, because everybody can tell a story of some incident they read in the news. Presumably the law is supposed to protect people who have been harassed and report it.

She didn't report those incidents. She merely organized a generic protest.

Protesting against x = claiming x is happening. It is a smear campaign.

Didn't Google just discover that they actually paid men less than women? Oopsie.

Organizing the women's march is like reporting sexism? I don't think so.

Not so attractive once you need medical attention, which most people will at some point. Also, lots of hard work.

If it can be rehabilitated, is it really so bad? Some are also coverted to lakes, in the hopes of creating attractive leisure destinations.

Unclear from the article how to prevent those injuries? I thought modern sports already tries to cover all the bases, so people also do supplementary strength training, for example.

Maybe the issue is not specialization, but too much sports in general?

Maybe it works because it ofyen doesn't matter.

In cases where Data Science is a replacement for astrology ("just tell me some reassuring mumbo jumbo to alleviate the burden of decision making), the inevitable bugs may be irrelevant.

I appreciate the theoretical power of Excel. I just don't see how keeping logic in Spreadsheets bug free could be possible. The logic is hidden away and hard to get to. It is already hard enough to debug classical code. Spreadsheets seem impossible.

"In fact, median wages for writers are dropping quite quickly, down 23% from 2014 to 2016, which is a similar amount as the fall in earnings for book literary authors after Amazon launched its vertically integrated kindle e-book reader."

Couldn't this simply be an artefact of more authors entering the market (and filling out surveys). It doesn't seem conclusive as a scare metric.

As for the general article, at the moment more art seems to be produced than ever before. No matter what endgame Netflix has in mind, I don't see how they could achieve a monopoly situation as with the Hollywood firms if the past. There is now the internet, everybody can publish.

Diacoverability, maybe - so they would become the Google of movie search engines? How would they prevent for example Google becoming the Google of movie search engines? Google retains its dominance because it is also pretty good, so far.

Apparently their jobs had become obsolete. Why exactly should their employment continue? Framing it as "delivering more money to shareholders" is so misguided.

Their salaries would be paid by the public anyway, factored into the price of the company's product.

Isn't it also humiliating to be paid for useless work? I think it can be better for the "victim" to be fired, too, so that they can find a more useful occupation.

How do people actually feel avout paying people for doing useless work? I personally find it quite enraging at times.

Where in the article is the "taking it up with the government" part? Shouldn't government take part of the blame?