esolyt

If you get a chance to talk to an Iranian, try explaining them why it's fine that they're losing access to internet because the internet was brainwashing them to hate their government. Also tell them their government isn't killing or jailing protesters and these are just made-up by Israel and America.

While you're at it, you can try explaining Ukranians why it's fine that Russia is invading them because America is bad.

Youtube Unhook extension does that and it does a lot more to improve Youtube's UI.

I used Whisky with M1 and M3 Macbooks. It certainly helped me run games much faster than a $300 Windows laptop ever could.

But we moved beyond LLMs? We have models that handle text, image, audio, and video all at once. We have models that can sense the tone of your voice and respond accordingly. Whether you define any of this as "intelligence" or not is just a linguistic choice.

We're just rehashing "Can a submarine swim?"

There is no indication they haven't read the article.

This product, much like iMessage and others, provides an inferior experience to non-Apple users. It aims to make other devices and operating systems look less capable and cheap.

iMessage also partially works with other phones. This doesn't change the fact that its intention is to create a lock-in effect, as evidenced by internal Apple emails.

So, just like a human brain.

I'm not sure the best way to change minds is using a facetious tone and quoting meticulously-crafted numbers from a right-wing think tank.

Billionaires get richer through asset appreciation, not income. The White House report is focusing on how fast the rich are getting richer and that's how they arrived at 8%.

A worker's salary is taxed at a high rate like up to 40%, whereas a wealthy person's gains from assets are taxed at a much lower rate like 15%. And that is if they realize the gains at all, because their unrealized gains don't get taxed at all.

Our current system (in which long term capital gains tax is much lower than income tax) rewards the owner class and punishes the workers.

The figures are misleading because if you have low income, your effective tax rate is indeed lower than the wealthy. But then you're barely surviving anyway. So if you're poor, you're screwed because you're poor. If you have a livable income, you're screwed because of high taxes. But if you're wealthy, the system exists to serve you.

Wealthy people are in the same social circles, of course they keep hearing these concerns about commercial real estate. They don't have to formally coordinate because they share the same class interests. You could even argue part of this coordination happens subconsciously.

Of course, not all wealthy people invested in commercial real estate. But they still have an interest in preserving the existing economic system. They certainly don't want a domino effect.

Yes but they don't just use a random set of photos. They take multiple 360 photos for the specific purpose of feeding them into their virtual tour app. That's why you can pan around.

Youtube is fast but the interface is certainly bloated. I highly recommend the browser extension Unhook which declutters and simplifies Youtube's interface.

> There is a Netflix box inside the ISP data center that streams video to subscribers without going through the Internet.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

> the US state apparatus answered to the media and the public, as is their duty.

No, the state feeds the media what it wants to see reported. They can share what they want and they can hide what they want from the media.

It doesn't matter because it's tiny.

The inequality between a Google engineer and a Starbucks barista is tiny compared to the inequality between a Google engineer and Elon Musk.

The article only covers the former and not the latter and therefore acts as the kind of propaganda expected by WSJ. In the author's defense, they admit they're focusing on one narrow benchmark and ignoring capital gains and dividends in this article. The article still has value. But the fact remains that the article has the word inequality in its title and completely fails to cover inequality in its actual sense, the way we understand it in a political context.