throwmeaway820

without a rigorous definition of "gambling", such discussions are pointless

This article was clearly written by an LLM.

The author has two other submissions, one of which is entitled "Programmatic SEO: Generating 100k+ Pages That Rank".

I'm at the point now where I find it incredibly rude when someone expects me to read LLM output without clearly identifying it as such.

I don't understand what you mean by "data point of one"

Do you think I'm talking about my own, personal income?

I'm talking about mean personal income in the United States, because the figures I found for household income only go back to 1985

> A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s

This assertion is based on comparing reality with a counterfactual where income distributions remained static from 1975 to the present. Real median personal income roughly doubled over this time period.

The use of the word "transferred" seems a little intellectually dishonest here. The use of the counterfactual seems to suggest that income distribution has no relationship with growth in total income, and total income would have been exactly the same regardless of income distribution. I see no reason to assume that to be the case.

It seems unfortunate that enhanced protection against physically attached devices requires enabling a mode that is much broader, and sounds like it has a noticeable impact on device functionality.

I never attach my iPhone to anything that's not a power source. I would totally enable an "enhanced protection for external accessories" mode. But I'm not going to enable a general "Lockdown mode" that Apple tells me means my "device won’t function like it typically does"

> Mom and pop businesses with limited IT skills are not collecting emails

They absolutely are!

why would anyone risk starting a business in such an environment?

> A flat minimum, say 5,000€ per violation, no matter how small the company

It's hard to imagine a practice more hostile to starting and operating a business than such a policy

three billion here, three billion there, pretty soon it begins to add up to real money

> it appears to me to be really hard to guard against

I don't want to sound glib, but one could simply not let an LLM execute arbitrary code without reviewing it first, or only let it execute code inside an isolated environment designed to run untrusted code

the idea of letting an LLM execute code it's dreamt up, with no oversight, in an environment you care about, is absolutely bananas to me

a drug interaction checker can be deterministic, based on a static corpus of drug interaction data

a diagnostic system should not necessarily be deterministic, because it always operates on incomplete data and it necessarily produces estimates of probability as an output

> A recent study shows that on any given day, just 12% of people in the US account for half of all beef consumed in the US

By itself, this figure doesn't really mean much. On any given day, less than 1% of people have birthdays, but that doesn't mean there's a small percentage of people who are having most of the birthdays

The following paragraph is more valid, but the 12% figure still seems dubious.

Pure populism.

If you believe that banning investors from buying SFHs will decrease the price of SFHs, why not also ban investors from buying apartments/condos?

> Does it matter? Like how does it matter?

To me, it matters because most serious art requires time and effort to study, ponder, and analyze.

The more stuff that exists in the world that superficially looks like art but is actually meaningless slop, the more likely it is that your time and effort is wasted on such empty nonsense.

> why wouldn’t they just skip the loss making Europeans and just sell to Americans?

this argument is easily dismissible for any product that has high fixed costs but low marginal costs

which applies to a lot of drugs