How would you feel about a test for "teal or blue" or "teal or green?" You still need to make binary choices, just along different boundaries. Would it make any difference?
if the question was "is this more blue or more green" it would be somewhat more agreeable. but there really just have to be a "can't decide" option as well.
It is mentioned on the about page but I still feel like pointing out that your response to this test has as much to do with your perception of colors as how green or blue your screen is and what kind of ambient lighting there is. Especially considering how subtle the differences are in the final rounds of the test.
Still an interesting experiment, but I would be cautious about drawing conclusions about anything from it.
It should not take more than one brain cell to realize that in an era when employment is already perceived as precarious, you are not going to earn any public favors by telling people you are taking their jobs and making them obsolete. Doubly not so when you offer no alternative path towards building personal wealth. Triply not so when you address none of the economic problems people face like housing or healthcare costs but make others, like social cohesion and energy prices worse.
If the industry continue to gleefully ignore public discontent over AI impact on society, I imagine what might happen is a public backlash that would make the post Chernobyl anti nuclear sentiment look tame.
The more likely explanation is guns. Gun ownership tends to be higher in rural areas because of a mixture of culture, politics, utility and laws. Only 14% of adults in New York State have guns compared to 59% in Alaska. Having a quick, easy and painless way to end your life right on your nightstand makes it a lot more likely that a bolt of suicidal urges turn into action.
Then overlay a map of gun ownership rates over the suicide rates and see if you see the same correlation.
This isn't an intuitive point. There's actual data showing the correlation I've described.
Something you'll also want to explain is why the suicide rate for teens is 3x higher than for adults and why elderly is 2x higher than adults. Or why more than 1/3 of suicides don't involve a gun at all. Or why Japan's suicide rate is so much higher despite having no gun ownership rights.
> Travelers going between cities/countries carry items for people who need to send stuff.
Be thankful that you are having trouble recruiting users because a lack of users is what preventing your company's name being on the headline when someone gets executed in China or Singapore for carrying someone else’s drugs.
And even if nothing illegal is in the package, your users will still likely run into troubles when the security agent asks if all items in the bag belongs to the traveler. If you answer honestly they will likely double and triple search everything, if you lie and say no you are automatically breaking the law for making a false statement to a federal agent.
> Why? I get the warm-and-fuzzy angle of "instilling civic responsibility"
I have found that when older people ask young people to do this kind of "mandatory service" they never specify what exactly are they going to do while being on the government's leash.
It's always this warm fuzzy hand wavy "civic responsibility" or "build communities" thing, that they always seem to think is something someone else should do when they are fully capable of doing it themselves.
JR was only privatized in 1987 after the previous state owned railway company borrowed too much to fund its infrastructure projects like high speed rails.
> So I understand the concern that this court decision threatens the future of some forms of archiving, digital preservation and librarianship. But the existing norms and repositories this threatens exist because people established those norms and archiving projects before now, in living memory, even in the face of threats and lectures about precedent and worries about legal gray areas.
> If you want to defend and protect "the many noble aspects of the archive", you have to remember that thirty years ago, those were imagined as impossible, impractical, and (whisper it) probably illegal. In both cases, it was Kahle's vision and approach that was -- apparently -- the only way it was going to get done.
This is about the Internet archive, but it applies to Anna's even better because Anna's is an ideologically motivated project. Yes they are taking a risk, but I imagine they consider it a worthwhile risk if it has a chance of helping them build the world they want — one where copyright does not exist as it does today.
Plus, it's not like Anna's got anything more to lose anyway. If they ever get caught the publishers are going to squeeze every single cent out of their pockets anyway, so how exactly is making spotify and record companies their enemies going to cause them extra harm?
reply