This is the answer to whether AI executives actually take their own rhetoric seriously. If they actually believed in things like UBI as a solution they’d be doing something besides this.
One of the perks of being at the top of the food chain is that you get to define what things mean. Just like the meaning of AGI has been redefined by the masters of the universe to resemble whatever the current state of AI is, so too will concepts like UBI if it ever approaches a state where it could one day impact their wallets.
Where proven anti-poverty initiatives have been kicked to the curb (legislation-wise) in favor of horseshit like "effective altruism", so too will UBI be one day bastardized into a system that requires people to live in company towns (with sub-residential tenant protections of course), be paid in company scrip, and be spent at company food stores - a final solution for the EBT/SNAP food assistance system.
Not a Catholic, but a Christian, and I think Christians in general are in a very difficult position in the US, which has not historically been the case. Today any party-line vote is a vote against one Christian core belief or another.
As long as you're making fun of people twisting Christianity to suit their goals I guess this is funny. But imagine how frustrating it must be for genuine believers in a Jesus who says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," and, "Bless your enemies and do not curse them," who are now victims of both the original twisting and the future ridicule to come (not to mention those being led astray).
Consider that Paul's misogynist (albeit commonplace for the time) views on women have probably been responsible for the abuse, rape and killing of more women than men were killed in the Crusades, and his views on slavery were used to justify the practice for centuries, including in its most brutal manifestation in the US.
The Crusades and Inquisition, bad as they were, were also limited in space and time. Paul's words have arguably done damage across the entirety of Christendom to this day.
This is a rather unbalanced perspective that lacks a shred of evidence. I can't imagine that you've actually read his letters, because if you had you'd know his stance on the role of a husband is not remotely what you've described.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Timothy 2:11–15)
It doesn't really matter what Paul says on the role of the husband, when he makes explicit his belief that women should be subservient because of some ontological inferiority on their part through Eve, and that the only value a woman has is in childbearing.
Saying a slave should obey their master doesn't ameliorate the moral evil that is slavery, and saying a husband should "love their wives as Christ loved the church" doesn't ameliorate misogyny. Paul doesn't believe men and women are equal, nor that they deserve equal rights, and thus neither has Christendom for most of its existence.
And the evidence is everywhere, in the two thousand years of law and culture based on the religion. Christian opposition to womens' rights and suffrage, divorce and non-heterosexual relationships. Laws forbidding women to work or own property, judges deciding that rape cannot exist within marriage because a woman's duty is to please her husband, husbands abusing their wives when they don't "know their place." And of course banning women from any position of power in the church. All of these are the consequences of Pauline principles.
Yes, I am aware of this passage. He is not speaking to equality of genders. You can read his other writings to see how he treated actual women who were in leadership roles in the early church. If you believe in Christianity then you believe that God ordained specific and symbolic roles for husbands and wives and the appropriate authority to go along with each.
Paul also wrote the men shouldn’t have long hair and women should keep their heads covered, so there is also an amount of “being at peace means also being at peace with the culture” to be interpreted from his writings.
Having read the Bible several times through, I don't see any disagreement between Jesus and Paul. This is further supported by the fact that the original disciples/apostles accepted Paul's teachings. And if there were a disagreement on the nature of salvation I assume things like circumcision would have taken a back seat to that debate, yet that is not what we find in either Acts or any of the letters of the apostles in the New Testament. So, I think the view that Paul somehow subverted Christianity is a self-deceiving one designed to reinforce previously-held beliefs.
Sure, this is a way to get better at learning songs, in particular. Any consistent practice will result in getting better, though. After about 20 years of playing (though less as the years have gone by and life has been busy), I actually find playing live to be the most impactful thing. You have to find a way to make the song work and keep up with the tempo! Often that means improvising. Being able to improvise even a little covers so much that can go wrong while playing.
But there are lots of ways to get better, and to a degree it depends on what your goals are. I enjoyed the article.
Did you work out during those 10 weeks any? TBH if you went from regular lifting to not for 10 weeks I'd expect a similar decrease in your lifting numbers (though not a .4lb/day weight loss of course)
Some of the comments here (and lately on HN in general) are very concerning to me. Are we really going to pretend that people accused of real crimes shouldn’t be arrested, charged and, if found guilty, have an appropriate sentence? It doesn’t take many more than 2 brain cells rubbing together to see that that won’t end well. Whataboutism, political differences, and even real injustices in my opinion do not make this a reasonable position.
It probably depends on what people think about the laws that define what a "real crime" is.
E.g. in germany it was a real crime to grow some weed. Now it's legal, but even before a lot of reasonable people didn't want someone go to jail over weed.
If we'd follow your line of thinking prosecution of those responsible for MH17 were also to remain anonymous. Which is obviously ridiculous.
If growing weed is illegal in Germany, and someone unknown grew a lot of weed in Germany, they end up being sought, and (eventually) their name and other details could end up in a police warrant.
The comparison is moot though since growing weed in Germany requires physical presence in Germany. The alleged cybercrimes could've originated from anywhere in the world due to the nature of the internet.
It just isn't doxing unless you don't see legal merit in the German police and German authorities. Which is obviously rhetoric the Russians want others to follow.
No, it doesn't, at least not to me. I can disagree with a law while also agreeing to obey it and that those who break it should have consequences. I can hold these two opposing ideas because that is the basis by which governments function. If everybody gets to decide for themselves what should be/not be a crime, then we don't have a society. Society is about compromise. What I'm seeing is not compromise. What I'm seeing is people dismissing the whole of law because there's one they don't agree with, or an application or even abuse of the law that offends them. It's an abandonment of balance and a dismissing of rational conversation.
You've got quite a black and white viewpoint, which is fine and is exactly how 'the law' works, hence: "the law is an ass". Many people have a bit of grey where it comes to the less obviously socially costly kind of crimes, often based on their own lifestyle and dependencies, therefore probably on the 'wrongly' side of rightly or wrongly. Usually, I would think the 'grey areas' are on the fringes where the social-effects of the law-breaking are more hidden or second/third order. This is all quite normal and won't change amongst society as a general rule.
What I notice as different, and I'll try to keep this as minimally political as possible but, as you say, it seems to be an increasing irrational tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. De-fund the police as an example. I think the positives outweigh the negatives in this example, by a fair margin, but people react to what they're exposed to and the focus on outrage-bait-for-engagement in the current media environment has this an an outcome.
Additionally, the decreasing respect for the rule of law by the leaders of countries only leads their populace into the same kind of thinking. Leading a country backwards from the civilisation that is borne from the application of rules around behaviour and into the chaos that preceded said civilisation (this is a long term process and can be turned around, I'm not saying to start panicking just yet).
Some grey area is OK, and is almost necessary, for the sake of the ability to have the conversation about moving the law to be more in line with societal expectations, but too much grey area leads back to societal breakdown and chaos.
Yes, I almost totally agree with all of this. And I do believe in gray areas, but I don’t expect law enforcement to. I think that leaves room for worse things like corruption/favoritism. I don’t deny that those things happen too, but those are also crimes that should be brought to justice.
If a business is destroyed by ransomware, all its employees lose their jobs. The business's customers lose the services the business was providing. The families supported by these jobs are now all at risk.
All that money goes somewhere. Much of it goes towards clothing, feeding, and housing people. Also, in most places it's a crime to rob anyone, even selfish assholes.
That seems beside the point. The ransomware extortionists aren't doing a utilitarian calculation and transferring funds from Exxon to Oxfam. They're taking money where they can and using it to fund a lavish lifestyle and more extortion. In particular, they aren't channeling it towards transforming any society into one in which basic needs are met by something other than jobs and businesses of the familiar sort. The extortionists cause suffering. They parasitize other people's labor. Their acts have actual, identifiable victims. The escorts serving them Moët at their birthday parties funded by other people's suffering aren't doing it for fun, love, or charity. For the escorts, it's a job.
I agree that our economic system is cold, transactional, and cruel. The problem kinder systems always face is that the people indifferent to the cruelty of capitalism, exemplified by these extortionists, are still there in the alternative system. The alternative must develop countermeasures or fail. The countermeasures replicate the cold transactional cruelty of capitalism.
This isn't to say all countries are doing equally well or poorly, just that countries that came closest to eliminating what we call businesses were not generally regarded as kind, compassionate paradises by the people who lived there.
You sound depressed. I wish you well. I wish the world were kinder to idealists. May you find a supportive community within the indifferent wider world.
Indeed. It reminds me of Lewis’ That Hideous Strength in a way. If we take the severed head post-brain-death and pump it with blood and oxygen and feed it impulses so that the mouth moves to form the words we tell it, is the person living again? No, it’s just a head, speaking the words it’s been given.
This. Much of the most prevalent messaging on both the extreme left and the extreme right tends to be from other countries posing as Americans. It’s also difficult to even form opinions lately as the amount of lying by all outlets is nearly impossible to sift through. All we really know is that right, left, black, white, gay or straight, nobody is actually on our side anymore.
How is it we've made it this far and we still don't have any kind of independent auditing of basic publish security on NPM? You'd think this would be collectively a trivial and high priority task (to ensure that all publishes for packages over a certain download volume are going through a session that authenticated via MFA, for instance).
> You'd think this would be collectively a trivial and high priority task (to ensure that all publishes for packages over a certain download volume are going through a session that authenticated via MFA, for instance).
Because all mainstream packages are published via CI/CD pipeline not by an MFA'd individual uploading a GZIP to npm.com
Requiring a human-in-the-loop for final, non-prerelease publication doesn't seem like that onerous of a burden. Even if you're publishing multiple releases a day on the regular (in which case ... I have questions, but anyway) there are all sorts of automations that stay secure while reducing the burden of having to manually download an artifact from CI, enter MFA, and upload it by hand.
You can still have a step that requires a certain user/group to sign off, and you can still enforce that those users have MFA set up. Almost any serious shop that expects to pass audits already does this in some form or fashion before pushing code to prod.
reply