discodonkey

The current wave of tech layoffs is much like those that preceded it (e.g. after the pandemic), except this time AI is used as a scapegoat.

Ancedotally, as an Israeli, people's (or at least protesters') discontent with the Netanyahu government is essentially limited to his criminal charges, general populist antics, and his refusal to cut a hostage deal.

You would be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks the IDF is commiting war crimes in Gaza, let alone a genocide.

There is great skepticism towards international NGOs that make these accusations, especially the U.N., owing to past pro-Palestinian bias.

I don't understand how you can portray these small-business owners as some helpless lambs, powerless against tourists. I can think of many ways to stop tourists from patronising an establishment. But of course (that one cocktail bar owner notwithstanding), most businesses operate for profit, and lap that money up.

Really, it seems to me like this essay is more about turning up your nose that some people are not enjoying Japan the "right" way.

This is perfectly reasonable.

People are living and staying healthy for longer than they used to, while the overall population is aging disproportionally due to low birth rates. If they hadn't raised the retirement age, they would have to raise taxes very significantly.

People should remember that retirement is about making sure the people who are too old to work can still live respectably. It's not an end-of-life vacation.

Of course, it's still going to be massively unpopular. But the alternative is fiscal armageddon.

When AI writes nonsensical code, it's a problem, but not a huge one. But when ChatGPT hallucinates while giving you legal/medical advice, there are tangible, severe consequences.

Unless there's going to be a huge reduction in hallucinations, I absolutely don't see LLMs replacing doctors or lawyers.

I think the authors of this article probably sought to highlight the fact that AI is now being used in medical research, rather than credit it with all the work (see "helps unravel" as opposed to "unravels").

My point was that no data gleaned from this experiment would've been meaningful, regardless of the result, because it was not conducted very rigourously.and on a sufficiently large scale.

For a community that prides itself on critical thinking, I'm always surprised to see HN lap this sort of pseudoscientific witch-doctor stuff up.

This poorly-controlled, N=1 experiment tells you nothing, not even about the author.

There's absolutely no reason to consider these novice self-experiments when professional scientific experiments are available (unless you're hunting for a specific result).

It seems to be using the CPI. The basket of goods & services the CPI is referencing is determined by the extensive Consumer Expenditure Survey, and reflects to a fair degree the actual spending habits of Americans.

Obviously, if you give more weight to housing, you're going to get different results. But it would distort the actual change in expenditure.

True. Income inequality increased.

The person I responded to suggested that only the rich saw income growth, and that they were achieving this by taking from the poor, which is wrong.