LaffertyDev

> GitHub are too scared to do that after the backlash around charging people for their own runners, but this would be a very different thing, simply stop giving free actions to people who have never paid them a penny.

I had no idea they charged you to run your own runner. I am immediately of the opinion that is wrong.

Conversely, I would have no issues if GHA become a premium product. Or maybe "your actions only run when we have spare compute". I've personally given Github money (back when private repos cost $$) and wouldn't be concerned about doing it again.

That is to say, I think you've nailed it.

> The Expanse have been great, but I think I will be good and ready to say good bye when I'm done with the mainline novels.

The novellas are fantastic and more bite sized. They published the anthology for the expanse ones that I read after book 9. Even if you're burned out on the main series, I feel like I'd still recommend the novellas.

I don't know where you pulled that from, its not in the article.

For #1, I would seek a laboratory capable of _actually_ creating a _live virus_. That link to lesswrong, while interesting, does not actually indicate how and broadly reads as incredibly speculative.

While this is far out of my wheelhouse, I am not aware of a commercial venture doing actual organic creation or manipulation of material (I.e. capable of creating a modified strain of COVID). This broadly still seems in the nation-state level of lab.

But, just to get this goalpost out of the way, even _if_ such a venture exists, then would it not hold a bunch of doomsday cultists would already try to do this? This is what I’m getting at by my third question. What changes? Why don’t we see modified anthrax attacks in Palestine or Ukraine _today_?

I take no contention with the social engineering argument. I fully accept that LLMs, today and for a while yet, are capable of social engineering their way into anything. I likewise take no contention with the sheer amount of effort LLMs could wield in pursuit of this.

> There was also a paper years ago that showed a tweaked model coming up with 20k novel pathogens each deadly to humans in some number of hours

> If you disagree with it, where do you disagree with it?

How would a malicious actor:

1. Successfully turn these 20k pathogens into actual reproducing viruses / bacteria / etc (in a lab)

2. Successfully turn that lab prototype into something weaponized (i.e. as a bio-terrorism drop in NYC)

And then

3. How is this materially different from today? If we can produce these pathogens in a lab and they can be successfully turned into a weaponizable bioweapon, what is AI accelerating?

This is now an argument I can start to get behind. There isn't a need for profit seeking or "dollar optimization" and I fully subscribe to the argument that the government can just "do things". I likewise fully subscribe to the argument that the ability for the government to just "do things" has been eroded over time systematically.

But, like, that's divergent from "This SpaceX contract is pure grift" that OP was not so subtly implying.

So your argument is that NASA, by virtue of being a government entity unburdened from profit seeking, could launch 18 rockets for less than $1.6B total or $88 million per launch?

Your argument is that NASA could launch 18 rockets for ~$160 million total or ~8.8 million per launch?

Or is your argument that the "real" cost of this $1.6B SpaceX / Space Force contract is in fact closer to ~$16B or ~$160B after accounting for tax subsidies and investment fraud?

> Customs can and do block non-compliant imports.

Software people (generally) have a limited idea of just how complex and rigid customs enforcement can be. Moving physical product between countries is actually a very hard problem.

You cannot sell homebrew (and presumably won't be able to sell distilled beverages) without a very expensive license. Homebrewers (of all forms) are generally very aware of this when they get into the hobby. Even "cute" forms of recompensation are heavily frowned upon. The most I've seen are to "pay for the glass itself".

All that is to say, the government is not harvesting tax from homebrew.

Stardew likely qualifies for the reduced store cuts. Steam _lowers_ the percentage for a game when it sells high. Still somewhere between 10 and 25%, though.

Generally, the Steam cut is considered “fair” for Indy devs. The benefits of steam (discoverability, massive audience) generate more sales. My Indy dev friends are not upset about the steam cut at all.

This, however, is one area where eventually Epic Games shines — they take a much lower cut and if they increase in popularity with gamers then steam might be forced to lower their share.

I don’t think you’ll find many race tracks that permit horses and cars to compete together.

(I did enjoy the sarcasm, though!)

That was a very fun sub thread to read, both for the on-topic and off-topic discussion. Thanks for sharing.