boreas

The fact that pharma has managed to obfuscate true prices is its own indictment of US healthcare.

(edit) made my comment a bit less confrontational in tone

It's very interesting, the comment you replied to seems to be using a typical free speech canard in support of increasing censorship.

Their argument doesn't seem relevant to the policy discussed in the article at all.

I simply don't have the personality to work hard. In general, I don't believe people change after adolescence. Therefore I am most focused on contentment with the person I am, while nudging myself gently towards greater discipline. Meeting myself halfway, so to speak.

This is why I found this essay very interesting but not very useful. I don't have trouble identifying interests, I have trouble pursuing them with the intensity of a PG. I don't mean this as a criticism at all. I don't think it would be possible to write an essay that would solve this problem.

Huge thanks to whoever posted this link first on HN. It's my favorite history blog by far.

Even if this may not be the most popular entry...

Practically speaking, network effects make it nearly impossible for alternative platforms to achieve the scale of their mainstream ancestors. Right-wing communities exiled from Reddit have much smaller audiences in their new homes.

I'm not so concerned with this level of "censorship" in and of itself. But what happens, when, inevitably, the media starts to demand the same out of Google, AWS, ISPs? That's the truly scary prospect.

EDIT: scary

Hope this gets a response - I don't see a paper.

If there is a paired dataset, I guess this could be "easy". The stylegan "input" is essentially used to control parameters at various stages within the network, so you could adjust them one at a time, or on varying schedules or something, to get the sort of gradual effect.

I know that randomly instantiated neural networks can produce some pretty trippy image transformations as well, so maybe there is a way to bootstrap without paired data.

Lastly, I doubt this is on the right track but it would be cool if you could produce appropriately styled images with a "compression" approach. ie, trying to fit the audio information into some small visually meaningful latent space, and then using that to generate images.

edit: ok just watched the first example, back to square 1 for me. Its literally pulling stuff from paintings.

You might be interested in the novel "The Goldfinch". It's pretty relevant to this post, and somewhat relevant to your comment. But it isn't a heist so to speak.

I would hope that increasing density doesn't require much upfront investment. It's definitely true that density creates more strain on public goods like roads that are disproportionately funded by yesterday's taxpayers. I guess that is a pretty reasonable externality to incorporate into permitting fees.

I wonder if there is any data on how upzoning affects suburban property values. I would prefer not to live in a single family detached house next to condos. Then again, the optionality to put 10+ units on a lot has to be worth something.

Personally, it strikes me as profoundly illiberal that we allow and expect from local governments such complete control over private use of private property.

It is probably one of the most important policy issues from an economic/social perspective, and yet it doesn't have a clear valence in today's binary, identitarian political discourse. I see people from all backgrounds and affiliations arguing for/against upzoning/housing density.

I meant "best" in the sense of achieving some sort of maximum total utility, mean utility, median utility, etc.

My point is that instead of inspecting every economic relationship for "winners" and "losers", we should tax the winners and support the losers at a global level.

Ridesharing created a more or less competitive market for this slice of the transportation sector. Competitive markets are the best way to allocate resources. If you don't agree with that, it will be hard to have a productive discussion.

But if you do agree with that, shouldn't we resolve inequalities by directly supporting the least fortunate (with cash) rather than force parties into arbitrary economic relationships?

I didn't see the article at the time but from skimming it I'm sure I would have been fooled.

GPT-3 fits snugly into the pattern of "AI does intelligent thing -> we decide/realize thing doesn't reflect meaningful intelligence". Maybe in this case the devaluing of blog "crack" is a positive thing.