Sometimes it is, but also sometimes it isn't, and Rust at least gives you a choice (you can use Arc all over the place, or if performance is critical you can be more careful about specifying lifetimes)
even if the LLM is trained on flawless C code (which it isn't) it still has no way of reasoning about a complex system, it's just "what token is statistically most likely to come next"
I said that because it's very possible for someone to write a more flawed program without an LLMs help. The exact probabilities weren't central to my point.
If it was done as a desired choice rather than it being driven by economic fears, you're right, we shouldn't care. But for most people, they aren't having kids because they don't have a house, they don't have a stable partner (tangentially tied to economic needs), they just don't have money to raise kids.
With supply and demand, you'd expect a decline in workers would mean higher wages down the line. But the ruling class will always make sure there is endless immigration and free trade agreements to keep the average citizen broke and miserable.
> If it was done as a desired choice rather than it being driven by economic fears, you're right, we shouldn't care. But for most people, they aren't having kids because they don't have a house, they don't have a stable partner (tangentially tied to economic needs), they just don't have money to raise kids.
Do you have data to back up this assertion? My understanding is that the poor still have the highest birth rate in the US.
The economy is predicated on future growth, so if growth slows due to lack of workforce, bad things may happen. Social programs become insolvent. It becomes difficult to take care of an aging population.
(Not sure what makes you say “cheap and exploitable”, are future generations somehow more exploitable than current or past generations?)
Then change the economy to a more sustainable version of itself instead of predicating that people must multiply themselves to make another rich asshole even richer. Problem solved.
The economical system we live under is predicated on future growth. The economy can have different forms, it's the exploitative way of economy that demands future growth, perhaps we should be looking into a different way to organise the economy that caters for the inevitable future where we won't have constant population growth to support the system.
I remember back when I'd spit the growth-for-growth-sake-is-cancer thing. But the reality is, unless you've spent time in a low/no-growth economy, how on Earth can you speculate on what is good or bad about it? All the last three generations of humans have ever know is unbridled, fantastical growth. And being pessimistic about continued growth is the definition of literal ignorance of what a no-growth or negative growth society looks like.
I'm not saying I have all the answers, or that we can keep this game going forever. But let's not pretend everything will be better when we finally stop having future generations to build our cars or take care of us in our old age. And no, robots wont do it for us (maybe cars, but damn, I hope I don't have robots taking care of me in my dotage).
I've spent decades in geophysical exploration for energy and mineral resources after growing up in agriculture and returning to it.
After spending time mapping entire countries for resources and having travelled through roughly two thirds of the 190+ countries I can report first hand that the earth is finite is size.
People familar with growth on a medium in a finite petri dish and increased cattle stocking on land, with fishing, and general consumption will be happy to tell you that infinite growth cannot be sustained from finite resources.
At some point metrics have to flip about and measure innovation and efficiency in a sustained economy.
Even should we branch out into space that still leaves the earth as a constrained system now exporting support to a outlier that needs time to itself become self sustaining .. Mars won't be suppporting Earth for many centuries to come, if indeed ever.
I 100% agree with you but the main problem is retirement which is what they're seeing in Japan and China. The younger generation is too small and can't sustain the older generation. When you pay social security it isn't actually saved, it goes to pay for the current older generation. The assumption is that when you grow old the same will happen too...
This is further complicated by modern medical science which is prolonging the life expectancy of people and making the overall cost even heavier. That's why countries are trying to raise the retirement age.
The solution should be a major leap in productivity coupled with a more progressive taxation system. Neither one of these seem to be happening right now, I hope this changes.
Perhaps the younger generation doesn't want to spend time with the older generation and thinks they need too much looking after.
This morning (I'm in GMT+8) my father (born 1935) was out for five hours delivering Meals on Wheels to older people that have difficulty cooking for themselves.
Do you mean that modern societies/families no longer take care of their elders within the family?
Wow. My mother was born in 47 and is now wheelchair bound. Barely functioning. It's probably that clean farm life that keeps your father vital at that age.
There's no single one stop comment for the entire planet.
My experience of Japan was that older people stay active longer .. and people like to have purpose and part of that can include looking after each other as people grow old and diminish in function at differing rates.
My experience of parts of some countries such as the UK and the US is that people get fat and relatively inactive some what sooner than I'm used to seeing in here in Australia and elsewhere (Vietnam, Nigeria, etc).
My father had a farming life early on, he's returned to a farm adjacent life in his early 80s, otherwise he's worked largely around minesites as a worker, foreman, manager but has stayed active walking about plants and constantly improving land they've owned by building walls, shovelling tonnes of literal shit for the garden, etc.
Fostering a sense of local community helps ease the changes as people age and there's a place for cross generational interaction in life also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_rJVvxx_g
The global human poulation isn't growing mostly due to births currently, it's growing because a very old generation is dying off and an old generation is aging but not dying as fast as the previous one.
Global replacement rate of ~2.1 is approaching (at the low end of estimates we're past it already), we're at 2.2 or so and population peak estimates keep getting lowered as models are updated with newer numbers, even with people living longer.
> There's very little voluntary about signing up to rules that you're required to sign up to in order to have a career in your field.
The rules are signed well before a career even becomes an option. Everyone who holds a race license, even if you buy a bike yesterday & start your first race today, signs the anti-doping agreement
It's probably better for both companies that he isn't. Better for him to torch a $6b series B and Twitter than mess up spacex & tesla more than he already has
He’s been mostly too distracted with Twitter. His last one was the launch pad all his engineers told him would be a disaster that he insisted on doing anyway. That legitimately had the possibility to put them out of commission for years had the concrete seriously damaged any nearby residential properties.
Imagine hating someone so much you resort to making stuff up.
The engineers did not think it would be a disaster, they thought it would erode as it had in previous testing (which would've been fine since the water plate system was already being designed), but hadn't expected the concrete to shatter the way it did.
Nearby residential properties have already either been bought by SpaceX or are otherwise required to be evacuated before launches. Those evacuation notices are a big part of tracking when launches are actually about to happen.
Imagine being so emotionally invested in a billionaire who doesn't know who you are, that you think other people are as well.
I don't hate Elon because I don't think about Elon beyond commenting on the occasional article he happens to be referenced in and shaking my head when I see him do something stupid. I'm glad he put money towards both projects (Tesla/Space-X) and got them off the ground, and now I wish he would just leave them both alone and let adults run the show.
Yes, he literally took ownership of making the call for a concrete pad despite the engineers telling him it was going to fail.
>Elon was clear that the decision to fly in that configuration with no water or diverter was his call, and in this case it almost destroyed the pad, accelerated the rocket’s failure, and led to the program being grounded pending FAA review.
Just like he was the one who insisted on a yoke without progressive steering in the Model S that is absolute garbage and quite frankly dangerous, and any real engineer would have told him if he had cared to ask.
>Elon was clear that the decision to fly in that configuration with no water or diverter was his call, and in this case it almost destroyed the pad, accelerated the rocket’s failure, and led to the program being grounded pending FAA review.
That is not the same as what you said. He made the final call (him taking ownership over decision making is literally his job, the alternative is blaming engineers for not forseeing every issue and devolving back to old space's wasteful waterfall style development), you claimed that the engineers knew it would be a disaster. That is false.
Citation? Because the engineer, who worked for space-x, in the article I linked, clearly knew it would be a disaster. There were also posts on twitter throughout that engineers were VERY concerned about the decision (because they knew it would be a disaster).
Meanwhile your source is - yourself? Who also appears to think (both in this thread and your post history) that anyone who points out Elon's flaws "hates" him.
Sometimes it is, but also sometimes it isn't, and Rust at least gives you a choice (you can use Arc all over the place, or if performance is critical you can be more careful about specifying lifetimes)