jvanderbot

But my stomach has no UV light!

Agree - Game modding got a ton of people into the games industry. Editing asset files as a kid on the old Apple machines was a blast.

AI+game modding for the purposes of game exploration or AI exploration might just be the shot in the arm the industry needs for story-driven, interactive games that aren't confined to traditional scripts. It doesn't have to be far fetched over a 10 year horizon.

You're getting stones thrown at you when you were trying to be polite.

From my memory we often piled into the car, got dinner, and went home and my parents had to stay up late to clean while we went to bed.

In my wife's memory, one parent couldn't work - all this stuff had to fall on them.

I'm saying the $10 is a nicety, not a necessity. We would be ok without it. I just think we're a little better with it. It's a market system - if I need it, it's there at a price I can justify. Markets are a good thing.

Fair! But $10 establishes a lower bound on a rational audience's TAM at a quarter billion a year. If it's higher, the TAM goes up without requiring loss of rationality / non-laziness of the customer base.

My example is _not_ preying. That $10 does nothing to help our lives if invested in diversified etfs, for example. The _best_ use of that $10 is to alleviate the instantaneous stressors for 4-5 people all at once so we can relax and solve larger problems (my spouse works for pro-social non-profits, for example).

Yes, doordash can prey on laziness, and people will fall into laziness, but in my example the _availability_ of the service is providing a price-adjustment for urgency that matches my own rational prioritization of the evening's needs. It's the most rational, mutually-beneficial argument I can make, and it's real in my house from time to time.

Take a salary boost and RSU in cash denominations that show evidence of re-evaluation on funding raises, (vs options at preferred price). Otherwise, yeah, it seems like dilution just hurts.

No way.

Here's how it works out rationally: I just got home from work, the kids are a mess, the house needs cleaning, and my spouse is having a work crisis. The kids favorite treat is chipotle. Of all the options for "use money to make this go away so I can focus on the problem" paying $10 surcharge for doordash is by far the cheapest.

"Hey kids chipotle treats are on the way - but you have to go get your room tidied and leave mom alone" actually does work.

6 million smart, rational engineers, mathematicians, actuaries, professors in the country, each doing this analysis, four times a year, yields 240 million dollars in surcharges without an ounce of laziness.

Then add laziness on top.

The book is overall excellent and extremely data driven. I have no idea why a book recommendation, on topic, can get downvoted on HN nowadays.

Outlive is an excellent book, and one of the excellent discussions in that book is that there is no safe level of certain kinds of cholesterol. The details are fun do read up on.

It's somewhat bombastic, but a really excellent book for overall "next generation" health.

Almost. In a zero-sum world, where "Big" and "Tech" only combine into "evil", any use of a resource by big tech is intolerable. You can't get there from water use statistics, you have to assume zero sum, and you have to assume improper use.

That is the most factually correct and constrained headline and GP comment I've seen in a while. Both are literally true as written, and contain no anecdotal, cautionary, or extrapolated suggestions.

Yes - the question has always been whether that is a good reason for a new, big federal organization to expand its surveillance capabilities, budget, and prosecution powers.

As a MN'n, I have my own opinions about the escalatory tactics of protestors (the marches were awesome, but many of the follow/callout patrols seemed designed to get people killed), and the predictable response of ICE. All while I strongly oppose gov surveillance and tracking like this.

Yeah what goes unspoken in all these AI discussions is that there's a culture of collaboration that just evaporates when everyone is pushing their own ideas.

There's very little mutual discussion, brainstorming, anything. The slowness inherit in building software before made those discussions almost necessary, now they're post-hoc criticisms (PR "review") rather than fulfilling collaborations.

It's fine from a technical sense, but I do wonder what it does for culture.

I've found, from working with scientists and non-software specialists at NASA, universities, and various industries, that the big wins come from specialists learning to code as the vanguard, then a few engineers taking over for production. I think that's ever more true with AI assistance, and I'm not sure what is left for product-ization. All I know is it's changing fast.

It's always something I've hated, coming from software and working with experts. I always wanted to be the "software guy" who gets to learn the specialist engineering disciplines. It just felt like swimming upstream and the incumbent specialists always wanted to DIY.

Having said that, some subject-matter experts just don't have the stomach for it. They are so separated from software that they have a block to building even with AI. A good s/w-specialist pair is dynamite there.