You can’t afford to risk being weird anymore. Housing is too expensive. Too many weird steps in non-pecuniary directions and you’ll end up on the street or your mom’s couch.
This includes full Israeli withdrawal to a buffer zone, Rafah crossing reopening, and Hamas giving up weapons and control of Gaza, with US/Arab-funded rebuilding.
If you don't understand the difference between now, and those events, then I can't help you.
> was aided by his "toughness", such as, you know, striking Iran
Striking Iran didn't end hostilities in Gaza, Trump leaning on Egypt, Turkey and Qatar did [1]. (The Iran strikes might have worked because Hegseth was sidelined [2].)
Hegseth is a wuss who couldn't cut it in the military. He's in place because he's loyal, probably compromised, and plays masculinity well on TV.
I didn't say it directly ended, I said it was aided by.
> "I think it really started when we took out the nuclear capability of Iran," Trump said, referring to the June strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. "When you look at what they had, you couldn't have made this deal with someone sitting over there with a nuclear weapon over your head." [1]
The last ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was in January of this year, before he took office, but yes, he's a special boy for actually doing his job.
Of course, everyone in the room has already read the same leadership tips, likely earning you plenty of eye rolls and detracting from the straightforward, honest cooperation and on-task communication that are the backbone of all successful teams and companies.
It blows my mind people here don't understand this. Copyright is a huge benefit to society. And under copyright, people that don't want to use it are free to release their rights to the world, so you get two approaches. Which one do we see contributing the most to modern thought? To modern entertainment? To education? Imagine if all text books were open, the only authors would be overworked grad students assigned to update them for next quarter.
Is it? We don't have the technology to duplicate the Earth in, say, 1776 but without copyright, and run an experiment, so all we can point at is a logic argument that we need to incentivize writer and artists and creators. Which I mean, sure. I want to write the next great American novel and not have to work for the rest of my life. and for my children and their children to not have to work either. Is that really for the betterment of society though? You can give some additional logic arguments in favor of that, but without Earth duplication technology, there's nothing that really constitutues real actual proof. The closest comparison we have that I know of is to look at China, which has far weaker intellectual property laws, and, well, they haven't fallen into lawless anarchy.
Yes, having the incentive so that people create and release works is better than people not releasing the works. If people want to release free they can under out current system.
It's not lawless anarchy, it's just less of the works that copyright rewards (you get more of what you reward). So all those free books/music/movies that are made each year you still have, but you have less professionals taking a year off to go write their book. You have less decent funding for educations books. You have less sharing of knowledge and ideas, and I would say that makes society worse. If people were going to release it for free, they would be doing that today. People just don't work like that.
An alternative would be to provide broad grant opportunities to make it possible to have a lot of people exploring creative endeavours at modest scale.
Very few creative works require kazillion-dollar budget, and presumably many of the current ones are subject to technical improvements making them accessible (you could probably produce a film/series with "1995 broadcast TV" production quality with consumer equipment today).
Copyright enables the runaway success "I made enough selling records/prints of my painting/copies of my novel that none of my children for five generations have to work." But we only say that to a handful of people per year. A reasonable grant programme could say "I can spend a couple years touring the country playing small town ampitheatres, writing my dream novel, or trying to put together a movie with friends and still be able to eat at the end of the day", to thousands of creative types every year.
Wikipedia, as well as untold unpaid hours that go into moderating all of the Stack Overflow family off sites,
as well as Reddit and elsewhere, seems to say some people do.
Half the value of a todo app lies in the act of writing tasks down in the first place, and the other half lies in reading, revisiting, and revising them. In this, a .txt file works as well as anything, and is much cheaper. For me, a proud skinflint, the low cost has of a .txt file a side effect: I’m tickled to use it, reinforcing the memory that any todo app is meant to create.
Seems like a market has emerged for a LinkedIn-like service that does everything LinkedIn does, minus the public posts. Resumes and direct messages only.
AI performs best in non-deterministic environments where highly extensive if slightly imperfect (or even hallucinatory) knowledge works just fine. When mapped onto today’s jobs, the fit feels less natural for high-level engineering than for “looser” tasks that would do well to be armed with wider knowledge. In other words, it seems like AI—or AI-armed humans—are more squarely aimed at executives.
Delegating executive decision making to what is essentially an automated form of Reddit and stack overflow seems like it could possibly lead to bad results.
For me, LLMs have been a very useful interface to tutorials for ramping up on new areas. That’s about it, IME so far. I suppose the executive equivalent would be as an interface to business books, case studies, etc. With all the variance in such a high dimensional space, probably higher dimensional than starter tier tech projects in an area, I can’t imagine that it would actually be very useful when the long run results are considered.
What do you think they’re being used for right now?
Seems possible that one possible unintended consequence of AI could be a rebirth of the Web as something closer to what we knew. Because why use search at all for general inquiry when AI can satisfy much of that?
More critically, it’s not hard to imagine that, with AI-boosted boosted coding, a thousand bespoke search engines and other platforms being just around the corner, radically changing the economics of platform lock-in. When you can build your own version of Google Search with the help of AI and do the same with social media or any other centralizing Internet force, then platforms cease to be platforms at all. With AI, the challenges of self-hosting could become quite manageable as well. And while we’re at it, some version of the same, individual-centered computing economics on your own devices seems possible.
In these senses, it’s quite possible that Jobs’s vision of computing as extensions of individuals rather than individuals being extensions of computing is again at hand, with the magic of self-curated order from a chaotic Net not far behind.
The speed alone is sufficient for a local-first approach. The latency of any cloud software I’ve ever used is like constant sand in the gears of thinking. Although taking supplements that slow my thinking—essentially natural downers—do improve my experience with such software, the improved experience comes at the expense of IQ. Basically, you need to be a little slow and dumb for the software to work as intended.
This is nuts. Computers are supposed to enhance and enable thinking, not make you stupid. In this sense, cloud software is possibly the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the paying, computer-using public.
For the love of God, please bring back my late 1990s and early 2000s brain-boosting computer experience.
