lucketone

> We do it for food, oil, weapons, vaccines, you name it.

Much easier to have a reserve of X, if X can be put in a warehouse and transported later.

After reading comments here, I think that US has plenty of cheap housing… but… cheap housing is in places where people don’t want to live. (Demand is low, price is low)

If you actually plan to use your own money to build a reserve of housing, better double-tripple check if anybodyz will want to live there.

Wealth was quite consolidated when most population were peasants.

Eventually buying spacex is obvious and correct. Buying prematurely is questionable.

Not changing rules would seem quite obvious and correct at the same time.

I would refrain from calling it “dumb”. Just different. Maybe a bit of a hype thing.

But it good illustration of why valuation is so high

> expects

Is bearing a lot load here.

It is a press release with a goal to create hype.

I.e. it has no relation to “facts”

… unless they would also share underlying numbers (e.g. cost/profit per customer, and why they think some things will increase)

Yes, because in all likelihood an artificial train is coming

Building on that futurism.

We might design organic brain extensions, so people just become smarter, making LLMs obsolete. (Brain-Bluetooth interface for additional cost)

Track record would matter if we would need to trust him. (E.g. he knows some hidden insider data which stays secret, while he shares only a conclusion without must justification)

Track record is not relevant if it is a prediction with all the arguments laid out in the open.

Which is our situation closer to?

Still, one can buy lot of interesting problems with that money.

XZ attacker spent half a year earning trust, doing real maintenance.

Different order of magnitude effort spent during XZ attack.

Frontend has lower barrier of entry and more appeal for beginners, so its bell curve might have its left edge is thicker. It impacts the avg of problems and culture of dealing with them

If the goal is to be misleading, but technically correct, it hits the bullseye

Emotionally I’m all-in on painful punishments for bullies.

But when I stop, and think slower, and more rationally:

That bully is a human being who will grow up and he will be a neighbour to somebody (some will die, some will go to prisons, but most of them will be somebodies neibhours).

If we show him only more and more cruelty, he will be a terrible neighbour to somebody (so indirectly, the system made that somebodies life worse).

One anecdote of creative solutioning: to reduce vadalisations of waste bins in the village, teacher somehow convinced(maybe by promising bad grade if they don’t) several bully’ish kids to make baskets, to be used as waste bins.

Idea was that makers will feel some ownership for it, so they won’t damage it later and maybe even prevent lower ranking bullies as well.