There's "can't afford" and "can't justify the expense". I'm certainly not poor and at basically no amount above free would I justify the expense. So any cost is completely unacceptable, especially given how much the public pays to produce these results. No more excuses, no more lame justifications, no more hiding.
You aren't missing anything except an embarrassing amount of ego on display in the article.
> the techbro botlickers tend to ignore that sort of thing
(admitting up front that users won't see the notice not to upgrade from 1.9 to 1.10)
> Naturally, this sort of "developer" – we use the word fairly loosely here, you understand – doesn't read the code first. That would ruin the vibe, man.
> You can probably guess what happened next: suddenly, there were a lot of very unhappy ChatNPCs
> In his follow-up blog post this week, The Jqwik Anti-AI Affair, Link innocently (or perhaps ever so slightly disingenuously) explains: "The line was not visible when you looked at it in an emulated terminal. I added this fade-out feature because I personally do not want to see it."
Which is why it's a coordination problem that requires a motivated leader like the government instead of throwing our hands up and saying "gee it sure sucks that everyone has revealed they like will buy the products on the shelves".
First we have to convince people that they will be better off if they have to pay a lot more for their toy trucks. That is the step 0 that nobody seems to know how to solve. Hollering about how the oil company CEOs are evil is not going to be the thing. It's already been tried. People will nod right along until you get to, "and that's why your gasoline needs to cost $7/gallon."
Trucks are 3.4% of US GHG (~60m trucks at 3.51 megatons CO2/yr is ~211 megatons CO2/yr out of 6,266 megatons from the US total). If we never started another pickup truck ever again we're still 96.6% away from zero emissions. It's also worth saying those people would probably still drive something and the odds of that car being zero emissions is very low, so this is pretty charitable. Anyway, this kind of finger wagging--bordering on contempt--is exactly why this has become a political issue. These are collective action problems. We're not going to solve them by asking/forcing people to take tremendous individual losses, no matter how repugnant you think their way of life is.
Trucks are just an illustrative point. Substitute for whatever trivial thing it is that people like and would not be willing to give up. {Beef, air travel, fast fashion, 69 degree interiors during the summer, etc.} Each one of these things only contributes a little on their own but if you add them all up it sums to a large fraction of overall US emissions.
Also not sure where you got the 3.7% number, but light duty trucks overall contribute around 10.4%. This includes some fraction of SUVs (those with truck-like drive trains weighing over 6000 pounds GVW) and minivans.
That being said, decarbonization of the truly necessary energy consumption is also a requirement, and that is expensive too. You need to convince people that they should want to pay for it -- no the billionaires cannot pay for the whole thing, for inflation-related reasons that are too complicated to get into right now. (The basic thrust of the argument is that US construction and industrial capacity is already highly utilized, and that allocating more workers to decarbonizing will necessarily drive up the cost of everything else, regardless of who nominally pays for the work.)
69F interiors would be no problem if powered by solar. The government massively subsidizes oil, it could have been subsidizing solar for decades instead but didn't because of how powerful and profitable the oil industry is.
Nobody gives a shit how the factory that made their toy was powered. Top-down approach forcing industrial changes could nearly solve the whole problem without individuals needing to change much of anything.
But entrenched interests will propagandize and say "the hippie whackos think you shouldn't be allowed AC" (like you kinda seem to be doing, frankly) when that isn't and never has been the only option.
...but then the other flip side is the government does things that result in contamination, dangerous chemicals in food, cookware, people dying, whatever.
You can't be "not convinced" that things would be better - "we" have a free market and that market produced sunscreen in the first place, without which we would have worse health outcomes. There's nothing to imagine - it happened. Things are better for us.
Not all things the free market produced actually have resulted in better health outcomes than if they had been disallowed (many result in the opposite, in fact) and certainly not better economic outcomes for the people who bought and used them. Regulation, as always, is a balancing act between enabling those who would do good and stymieing those (who with the best of intentions or outright sociopathy) would do harm.
So yes I remain unconvinced. Free market maximalists tend to highlight their favorite part of the story while ignoring history.
Regulation has not always resulted in better health outcomes than if the product had otherwise been regulated either. We don't need to set up this false dichotomy between markets and regulation and then bash markets over the head with the negatives aspects while ignoring negatives outcomes as a result of government action which you seem to be insinuating.
So to remain unconvinced doesn't make sense here. Though I guess I can just say I'm unconvinced of government regulations because why not? Same line of reasoning that you're using here.
Sounds like we just agree then. Regulations are necessary and should be tuned, and the Free Market can operate within those regulations, the best of all worlds is where these things work together.
> If the negative effect is this obvious in sunscreen, just imagine how much more impactful removing regulation on cancer drugs would be.
Note that I'm not even explicitly disagreeing with OP, you interpreted my "flipside" as a disagreement. It's undeniable that removing regulations in cancer treatments will be "impactful". Possibly even it will have positive impact. But I am unconvinced that this would be a wise pattern to adopt more broadly.
The original does not read to me as a call for tweaking regulations, it reads like an anti-regulation Boogeyman post. Forgive me for possibly over indexing on patterns I've observed from HNers making this type of comment.
They are of course free at any time to come in and declare that my characterization is unfair, at which my point about the flipside is still completely valid.
Oh, I didn't read it that way at all which is why I interpreted your flip side comment as I did. You seemed to be defending regulation for no good reason in that context where the OP was pointing out how regulation seemed to (and I have done no research on this so I don't know) be holding the United States back, and then pointed out areas where we also have in their opinion regulations that are too strict.
China doesn't have the same strict regulations, and yet when we compare life expectancy the difference isn't particularly big.
Thought terminating cliches like "Better safe than sorry" simply don't stand up to scrutiny once you actually check the numbers.
No, eating brasilian beef isn't going to kill you, and stopping imports from there is going to do a whole lot more to make you poorer than it will help your health. Take a walk, that will help you a whole lot more, and won't make you poorer.
There are so many confounding variables and long-delay influences, it’s nearly impossible to compare.
Prior generation Chinese tended to eat much less than any generation Americans, which has a proven positive effect on longevity.
Older generation Chinese also tended to (might still?) smoke like chimneys, which has a proven negative effect on longevity.
Older generation Chinese also lived through some crazy ‘population bottleneck’ events like the Great Leap Forward, which can cause very odd one time and unpredictable long term effects on longevity.
China started and enforced their one child policy early on, which has very weird population distribution effects, which will also have weird influences on longevity for everyone (due to excess or lacking societal support, etc).
They have also (relatively recently) been exposed to a wide variety of industrial chemicals, artificial fertilizers and pollutants.
Americans have had rapidly shifting food sources, pervasive but changing exposure to pesticides and artificial fertilizers, a massive shift from rural to urban to sedentary knowledge work, and widely shifting stress factors across a wide variety of areas. And a rather unique ability to spend massive amounts of time in commutes and automobiles.
This is also offset in time; and quantitatively different than Chinese have experienced.
Have you forgotten the origins of these laws? Around the turn of the 20th century, it was muckraker journalists that alerted the public to the deceptive and unsafe practices that food and drug companies were using at the time. People didn't know -- that's, eh, how deception works.
Huh? No you can't. Without regulation or oversight, companies will simply lie about what's in their product.
The libertarian vision really handwaves the practical reality of "I'll simply do a gas spectrum analysis on every single bite of food I put into my body. Easy!"
> Take a walk, that will help you a whole lot more, and won't make you poorer.
OK, before the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act and Federal Meat Inspection Act, food was frequently adulterated with e.g. formaldehyde in milk, borax in meat, copper salts in canned vegetables, and chalk/plaster in flour or milk.
Before the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, kids candy was dyed with toxic coal-tar. And on top of that was frequently contaminated with arsenic, lead, and mercury.
So please explain to all of us how taking a walk is going to save us from these issues.
FWIW duckdb's optimizer does actually push some of the query down into the target database such as selects and where clauses, which you definitely want in many cases.
I'm not saying that they don't have some internal self model that helps them model the internal states of others, quite the opposite. I am saying this specific explanation seems to lean on a biological mechanism that (at least by the phrasing of the linked article) is only present in "hominids".
Don't take this as a criticism, but I think overwhelmingly people took it the other way. The fact that the author admits at the end that the story was written with the assistance of "weights" is a tell, to me. I just have to assume the author's genuine position (which I believe to be, we don't know that LLMs aren't conscious or that they could never be conscious) is so absurd to you that the thing comes across as satire. I find myself in that same position sometimes.
I appreciate you taking a moment to write this. I was a little confused by the downvote. I think I have a tendency to credit satire at times when it's not intended... my own sense of humor has a lot to do with tweaking people's expectations, and coming from a family of tricksters, no one wants to be the one who doesn't get the joke. So maybe it's a me problem. Having said that, the situation with the aliens is that they can't conceive of intelligent meat, because they can't conceive of how that could work. We do understand how matrix multiplication works and how it gives rise to apparently emergent behavior, because we theorized it and we engineered it. So I can't help taking the idea that we'd be baffled at "that's it, just numbers?" as anything but tongue in cheek.
I'd only add that if it's not intentional satire, it's an even more profound example of the unintentional variety.
reply