green_man_lives

I think that since you are making the claim that generative AI is propping up stocks, that the burden of proof is on you to explain why it is so useful. Right now you are just repeating a platitude that was already beaten to death by tech hype influencers.

I am not saying that you're wrong, but I think there is more uncertainty with AI than there is certainty. If you claim to be certain about something then the burden of proof is on you.

If you'd read what I said, you'd understand why this doesn't apply.

This is not "my system" just poking holes in the argument I was responding to. Let's say you don't get taxed in this manner until after $1B net worth.

The US gov does a lot of unconstitutional things. I am just saying it's a lack of political will.

This argument is so lazy. Simply levy a tax on them each year that is their net worth multiplied by the risk-free rate. That takes care of most people with money in publicly traded companies. If people with more "diversified" portfolios try to move their money elsewhere, penalize them for it. Revoke their citizenship, make it harder for them to do business without a majority percentage of their wealth in the US. It's not "hard" to do, we just lack the political will.

I was not even alive during the Eternal September, but the way I feel now feels like how Usenet old-timers describe it.

Maybe my feelings are a bit hyperbolic, but 2023 really feels like the year that the internet "died". That plus heatwaves, price increases, etc, it really feels like the death throes of neoliberal capitalism akin to what the 70s were for managerial capitalism.

It's insane to me that with the threat of climate change looming, the US spent trillions on foreign wars. In the aftermath of 2008, when money was free we spent trillions more on what? More efficient ways to sell shit people didn't need or couldn't afford?

We had two decades and trillions upon trillions of dollars to improve our system in so many ways and it was almost entirely squandered. Even the most politically and financially ignorant Americans can feel how crappy our system has been for the last two decades.

The question is, what will replace it? A human-centric economy that invests money into physical and human infrastructure? Or the meme of neo-feudalism with people working in Amazon cages and paying for Domino's pizza in installments.

The real answer is that there is no actual way to win. You are at their mercy and it is really 100% up to what they choose to do.

Yeah the Gantt chart almost feels amateurish with how simple and optimistic it is. I would love to know how development actually went. I can't imagine building an entire game from scratch in just a year like that with such a small team.

I am implementing Monocular vSLAM as a side project right now. I am working with some optimization libraries like GTSAM but having some issues. Do you know any good resources for troubleshooting this kind of stuff?

It's pretty easy to see, even as someone with very little experience, the benefits of stereo vision over monocular. In addition to the depth stuff it's a lot easier/faster to create your point clouds from disparity maps.

I am just a hobbyist but I can answer some of these.

> Whats the difference between a “binocular” camera and two “monocular” cameras?

For the camera itself, nothing. They are probably referring to the implementation. You can have two cameras side by side but unless you are using homography to estimate depth from the two images, then your setup is monocular.

> How does a “binocular” camera get better depth information?

A pixel in two images (with known separation) will have a geometric relationship that can be used to extract depth information. This is a lot faster than alternative methods with a single camera and multiple images.

> Is using multiple cameras to drive sensor fusion?

This is really just a question of semantics.

> Why is absolute depth a strict safety win?

Why is it better to have two eyes than one? You can be more certain about what you are seeing.

> If this is just a handwavey upper bound on safety, how do you know that such a system can’t be safe enough for its design goals?

If you had a system with infinite compute you could probably do enough math to calculate absolute depth with 100% certainty. I believe you can already extract absolute depth with something called bundle adjustment-- but it requires multiple images since you are relying on parallax effects. It is also computationally expensive.

> If humans with only one eye are able to drive, why wouldn’t mono surround vision be at least as good as that?

Computers are not humans.

The answer is "it depends"

First, liberal doesn't really mean much in America. Liberal for a lot of people just means "those people I disagree with". For others it means people who uphold property rights and American global dominance to be sacred.

In the north and midwest you have a lot of poor people who are still voting Democrat because their state legislatures have vestiges of union-affiliated Democrat traditions. We see the Democrats in Minnesota being much more pro-worker than in New York or California, places we traditionally think of a "liberal". These people are probably registered democrats for this reason, even though at the national level the democrats are almost as hostile towards labor as the republicans.

In the south you had southern Democrat politicians or Dixiecrats, whose constituents got pulled into the Republican party under Nixon. He used blue collar aesthetics to bring them in under the same umbrella as the wealthy. This makes a lot of sense when you think about the fact that in the south, race and culture is a greater source of identity than class for many people, especially the poor. People will see Joel Osteen as being cut from the same cloth as them because they think that they share the same values.

Lastly, there are a lot of single issue votes in the Republican party on guns and abortion. I don't think that there are as many single-issue Democrats.

Funny, my grandfather worked in agriculture since he was 5 by his own account. He is the hardest working man I know, but I never heard him say anything about the value of a hard day's work. Instead he told me how important an education was and how I should always work smarter and not harder.

Couldn't have said it better.

> It's hard to pass a law that protects these people because they are outside of the legal system by being undocumented

It's really not. Don't deport people who file labor complaints. You can protect undocumented workers quite easily.

> Most of the people that are caught up in this situation came without a visa so please don't conflate the two.

I don't care if they came without a visa or overstayed a visa or literally walked across the border. I think borders are arbitrary and see very little difference anyways.

> I'm saying that pretending like having open borders and having all these undocumented workers and turning the blind eye necessary leads to exploration.

You are claiming something to be inherent when it is not. Illegal immigration does not create exploitation. Threat of deportation creates exploitation. If the threat of employer retaliation didn't exist, if illegal immigrants were educated about our labor laws, there would not be as much exploitation. It's really simple, I feel that you are being obtuse.

> This is the same logic that thinks it's compassionate to let mentally ill people sleep on the streets and self medicate

Nobody thinks it is compassionate to "let" people live on the streets, they just don't think cops should forcibly remove the homeless. Compassion would be giving them housing and treatment, but you wont see many "liberals" supporting free no strings attached housing.

If by self-medicating you mean harm reduction by giving opioid addicts heroin then I wouldn't say that is compassionate, just the bare minimum. When the alternative is them overdosing on fent or dying from withdrawals.

I think you haven't really thought very hard about these things because your arguments are very tired and simplistic. The answer is not more cruelty, nor is it the half-measures you see in San Francisco or Seattle or whatever. The policy solutions are pretty simple and are supported by empirical evidence in many countries and case studies.