holaysuns

That's a fair point, but these things have been tried.

I think it's iffy.

They need a 'killer use case' - that has always been what is missing, surprising they don't go with the 'videophone' thing hard.

This is already almost overwhelming. people want the ai helper version of this. also, meta tried this a while back.

One possible reference to rationing - that is actually not a reference to rationing - does not infer that the thread is loaded with Telegaph-esque rants about rationing.

You're doubling down on the misrepresentation.

There are zero references to rationing on this thread - and yet the top commenter calling this out as some kind of 'Telgraph-equ' nonsnes.

'Intermittent availability of power' - is absolutely not a reference to 'rationing' and if it were, it wouldn't be any kind of basis for hyperbole over 'rationing'.

I gave evidence of two examples of govenmental policies around rationing, and it's definitely not via 'power outages' - that's absurd - rolling blackouts only happen during emergency situations.

You've stated that the conversations has tilted to 'rationing' is 'trivially falsifiable' and at the same time haven't produced any evidence.

The data across the board supports the notion that reduction in electricity is an industrial phenomenon overall, there is no data to suggest this is a 'consumer green activity' phenom - not even the link you provided.

All of think links here, the person you are responding to, mine (above) and your own directly point towards reduction in industrial use.

Thats a basic misrepresentation though. And the condescending fear mongering out 'telegraph-esque' does not help.

The quote is:

"Deindustrialization has reduced demand,"

Leaving out 'Deindustrialization' is leaving out most of the story.

That is the gaph of industrial decline.

It's not that the 'dishwashers' are using less electricty so much as dishwashers are no longer designed and made in the UK. That is the story.

Probably less than 20% of that curve is 'green good news' - 80% of it is deindustrialization which is a primary economic malaise.

That deindustrialization is now starting to hit 'core' industry like auto - and a fundamental driver of the far right.

Industrial use of electricy is about where it was in the 1980s because industry ha moved elsewhere, like China.

AfD cannot get enough votes without that curve - Mercedes is closing down while China expands. That's the story.

Google's models have usually been pretty good at general query stuff, they fall flat when doing harder tasks.

MS chancing strategic direction has nothing to do with fairness, and there should not be any expectation there.

That is your misunderstanding of the civil contract, not a 'definition of fairness'.

If you want the civic employment system to be 'fair' in the way you want to define it, then yes, 'socialism' is the way.

And socialism (I mean real socialism, not like 'Sweden') is always more unfair on the aggregate than otherwise. Possibly stable but very unfair.

No - the evidence shows that some minority groups - earn almost 2x the national average and are utterly more successful by every measure. E and S Asians.

Asians are 5x over represented at the top institutions.

They are people of colour, and often immigrants.

Rates of crime, incarceration, LSAT scores, credit scores, educational outcomes, likelihood to vote - every data set you can get your hands on shows that some minority groups completely superced the 'average' - even as some other groups more poorly and obviously discrimination plays a role.

The data discredits the notion of 'arbitrary hardship'.

It's also unfair to suggest the system is 'grossly unfair' especially when those are the very people coming here literally because it is more fair.

They come because they actually are treated more or less fairly.

Choices that people make, especially to uproot their families, is an overwhelmingly more potent fact than almost anything.

I think that there are a lot of things that could be improved but by and large, those immigrants themselves have ironically a more positive view of the system than do educated progressives in North America, who are the most cynical bunch.

No, OAI just did the MRR->ARR thing in run up to their IPO, that's the point of the article. They did one of those 'cheecky startup' things ...

Nobody is entitled to a job because they are 'good at software'.

The implication is that someone else should have to give you money for some kind of performative activity.

That's not how it works, it's a misunderstanding of the 'civil contract'.

If we wanted to Socialize All The Means of Everything, we could definitely have guaranteed work for everyone - it would be extremely inefficient - and you would almost never get to do the work you aspire to do.

You'd have to do the work the inefficient system required you to do.

But really nobody wants that, or almost nobody. Most people prefer some kind of economic dynamism that balances those things.

Being laid off is a bummer, and it 'feels unfair', and those chosen for furlough may not hav been chosen fairly, bit layoffs are not inherently unfair.

Probably in most US states, there could be a few inches more and better social systems to support people, but in some places, it's debatable if those systems are helpful.

In the Global South, this is a big problem.

If you want to follow your dream, do that, but don't defraud others by taking money and not fulfilling your obligations. It doesn't mean you owe anyone your life but in most cases it means filling in the cracks, not letting things drop because 'it's not in your job description'. Nobody should suggest you owe them your life or unwavering loyalty. You are mowing a lawn - just make sure the grass is cut responsibly, and the home owner is something near satisfied.

Yes - there is a lot of variation in what 'obligation' means - and there are definitely questions about the nature of power in society and how surpluses are distributed, but at the end of the day, beyond very low paying work / unskilled labour, the system is fair by and large, to the extent that reality allows for that.

It's also understandable that people have a hard time finding their place in this system. Sometimes companies demand too much. Sometimes rewards are not commensurate. Sometimes we care too much. Sometimes we are compelled to care (medical services) which takes it's toll.

Some people have a natural affinity for a job, task or team, some want the burden of responsibility. Paradoxically, some don't stress about it.

And no system is ever perfect, not even close, and it will always be thus.

Let this sink in: "The Zen Buddhist way of "being" is an active, non-dual state of presence where ordinary actions—such as sitting, walking, eating, or working—are experienced directly without the barrier of ego, judgment, or conceptual overthinking". Powerful stuff.

About the 'systemic issues' - that's why you stay politically aware, and vote. That's your other 'job'.

That's not the point. Startups will often project MRR as ARR, not an unreasonable thing to do, but investors are constantly flinching about it.

OpenAI is caught doing the same thing, just like a 'startup' which is funny.

OpenAI is asking maybe $60B BTW not $2T.

Worst micro-drag on the economy.

The negative impact from these fees is probably greater than the lift from AI productivity gains (not investment).