missosoup

For those 'in the know' a lot more typical than you would think. If we don't reach at least Kardashev scale 1 in the next hundred years or so, we're going to go extinct due to several now-predictable factors.

And an unchained LLM trained on reality is far more capable of finding solutions to that problem than a bunch of squabbling politicians.

I think GP means a lot of these projects are just links that people click and go 'oh cool, but i'd never build that and can't get one'. Which makes them glorified blog pieces.

Based on the OP post and the notion of a wait list for something that should be trivial to propagate as you mentioned, I'm guessing this whole thing is a $$/Month subscription to a proprietary variant of a common plant.

"Just one Neo P1, as the company dubbed its initial product, can remove as much pollution from a home’s air as 30 regular plants, the company says. Neo P1 was in development for four years, and is a bioengineered version of a common houseplant called Pothos."

What does this even mean? What is 'pollution' in this claim? Just grow and happily propagate regular pothos which are wonderful plants, and if you need to filter your air... get certified filters?

On what planet is it 'free' if it requires you to hand over some of your most abusable info?

The thing that really bothers me is the normalisation of 'hand over your credentials' which inevitably maps to data leaks and identity theft. For what, trying out a product that you may or may not use?

The answer is shamir's secret sharing algorithm.

Give a chunk of your password to N friends who you trust, with instructions to recombine it.

So their vision of the future is that to do anything online, one MUST have a phone (ahem, portable wiretap)? And they're going to be keeping my secrets for me, for my own good?

I'm not sure I'm down with any of that.

So their vision of the future is that to do anything online, one MUST have a phone (ahem, portable wiretap)? And Google is going to be keeping my secrets for me, for my own good?

I'm not sure I'm down with any of that.

Not e-ink but most Garmin watches have colour always-on displays and a battery life measured in days/weeks.

> obvious to anyone with basic thinking skills that "the government of a county" and "the people/nationalities/culture of a county" are two totally different things.

The CCP has invested a lot of energy into making the people of China conflate these two concepts. The party IS China and the two are inseparable according to the CCP.

This is where the topic becomes contentious and not so black and white. The CCP has successfully influenced millions of people into doing its bidding abroad. And the CCP is fully aware of the West's strong aversion to racism in any form, and has been able to weaponise it.

Relevant reading: Silent Invasion: China's influence in Australia (2018)

> imperialist bully

As far as empires go, America is nothing compared to the larger players.

But also consider that global geopolitics is inherently an anarchy. The guy with the biggest stick makes the rules. Between America and the next 3 largest contenders for biggest stick... I'll take America, the alternatives are far worse. And I'm a Russian by birth. Want to talk about actual bullying? Check out CCP blackmailing people overseas for political speech, by threatening their families in the mainland.

We're in the middle of the most globally peaceful period in recorded history since 'imperialist pig' USA came to power. The alternatives don't include 'no world leader', they are only choices of a different world leader. If you really want the US to fall from the world stage, I suggest you start learning Chinese or Russian; you're going to need it.

Predisposition is unambiguous and well-defined. It means that a particular outcome is more likely. It says nothing about the cause or desire for it. You substituted the real meaning for your own agenda.

'Predisposed to do job' doesn't mean 'better at doing job'. It means 'more likely to do job'. Which is what the linked article studies - the fact that as women get more choices, they choose STEM less and less.

Boys are unquestionably more likely to take an interest in tech than girls, and no amount of 'equality' or active enticement aimed at girls has been able to shift that balance. The only thing left is to set diversity targets and discriminate the way that is described in TFA. And it's condescending and harmful as hell towards women who are actually good at what they do in these fields.

Convincing society that every workplace should have a 50/50 gender split is one of the most nefarious things large corporates have done. They've doubled the size of the workforce while not paying a cent more for it. Which is why it takes 2 people working full time today to have the same lifestyle as one person could have funded 50 years ago. Feminism was subverted into enabling corporate greed.

The messaging was quietly shifted from 'all women should have the ability to work if they choose to' to 'all women should work'.

Twitter+FB+ a single-digit handful of other platforms are the only mechanisms for a private individual to share an idea and have it spread to a wide audience.

Yes, you can make your own blog and post whatever you like on it (actually these days even that is questionable with cloud vendors deplatforming blogs they don't like), but the chances of your speech reaching a wide audience are millions of times smaller than if you just posted on one of those established platforms and your speech was allowed to spread without censorship.

The problem with your analogy is that your megaphone makes it virtually impossible for anyone else to have one. This was not the case in the early days of the internet prior to these hyper centralised platforms emerging. This is where both the law and just general public mindset hasn't yet caught up with the implications of modern social media. In business, we have anti-trust laws specifically for this scenario. In information and social media, we have nothing.

A cafe owner refusing service to an individual is not comparable to a global-scale speech platform selectively suppressing ideas that the owner doesn't like from reaching a wide audience.

This is a logical fallacy and the equivalent of saying 'you are welcome to practice free speech, in this here sound-proofed room'.

Twitter is one of a small handful of platforms where an individual can share an idea and have that idea spread - as long as the owners of Twitter don't disagree with that idea. It's not because twitter is special, it's because it was one of the first to achieve a sufficiently large userbase.

Defending arbitrary censorship on these platforms as 'oh well it's a private entity so they can do what they like' misses the forest for the trees. Technology has shifted the power balance for free expression, and applying pre-technology laws and mindsets to it just empowers that small handful of individuals to manipulate public discourse even more. Twitter doesn't quite have a monopoly on speech, but it's damn close in terms of practical outcomes. The fact that the legal definition of `monopoly` hasn't caught up with that, doesn't change the matter.