danesparza

Cite?

The Industrial Revolution took over 100 years. You could argue that WW1 and WW2 were direct, structural consequences of the Industrial Revolution.

This has taken months to up-end multiple industries.

I don't think the article makes a fair comparison.

Nurses have the same shit they have to go through (they get questioned by their own hospital legal team when the nurse is the one that got assaulted).

It's wrong. We need to stand up for educators and healthcare providers.

The problem is that subscriptions with AI models get a bit 'vague' on what you get and how (or when) you might be rate-limited.

So ... that makes it somehow "not theft"? I'm confused at the point you are trying to make.

I mean ... I know a few African nations that might disagree.

Did I miss something? Did this article have to do with IE6? It feels like you are responding to something that wasn't said.

This is a false pretense. Quality was never the norm.

What is no longer the norm is getting first-hand experience with a product before you buy it. Everything comes in the mail and it's a surprise to the consumer after they buy it. That's nuts!

I think maybe you assumed I meant the AI agent would run the company well, or that the mergers would be shrewd business moves.

Not at all.

But I don't know that they would do any worse than an average human would in the exact same situations.

"But an LLM can't go to conferences; they can't have Top Secret Meetings where a merger or acquisition is discussed"

Sure they can - especially when conferences are designed to have an API.

And when more companies are run by an AI, they will absolutely have secret meetings to discuss a merger.

Yeah - I agree. I'm not sure the problem is Flock (because it will just be replaced with another camera system eventually).

That police officers just don't get successfully prosecuted for this because of qualified immunity: that should be the big takeaway here.

Flock is just the whipping boy of the hour.

I mean, the movie "Office space" could have taught you that lesson almost 30 years ago.

The original quote that I was responding to was

"No one serious is worried about American solvency. The paper says 50% over the next 10 years, but even most economists misunderstand how the monetary system works. There are so many other issues to worry about at the moment more immediate than solvency."

And the only point I was trying to make was this: Nobody expects an entire (powerful) system of government to stop being a thing ... until it stops. And other powerful governments have stopped being a thing.

I'm sure there were plenty of pundits in ancient Rome who said things like, "No one serious is worried about Roman solvency". And eventually, they were wrong.

---

Side note: It doesn't matter if unserious people think these things or not. The article's premise is about the ideas of "too much debt" making the bond market a more risky bet.

If people aren't buying bonds this will eventually slow (and stop) cash flow to governments (including the federal government) to the point of it being a crisis, because bonds cover 25% of our Federal government spending.

Tell that to the Romans.