mojomark

Yep - this is the same BS marketing campaign the Chevron tried to (succeeded actually) pull of in the early 2000's WRT global warming. There's was energy. The campaigns were like "I will take the bus to work" or "I will use my hair drier less".

It's a deflection campaign - focusing consumer attention on a thing that is true (that won't cost them money) to divert attention from another thing that is true (that will cost them money and is their fault).

Both are true - and if they want to exploit a commons (the environment, the electrical grid), then they should pay for that exploit.

"...[the prediction that AI will continue to grow] will be proven wrong because everybody hates it."

I have no love for Zuckerberg or Lucky or Musk or any of those gadooshbags, but I don't hate generative AI. It's a useful tool and I've been using it consistently every day for well over a year. I'm part of "everybody", so that's at least one counterexample.

"ERP" not defined upon first use. I stopped reading.

It was a general statement about any company with a value to employee ration that high. It's about sharing gains of a team as a whole.

$1.75T / 25,000 employees = $70M/employee. That's pretty impressive.

You would think even the lowest paid employees performing routine labor at the company would be pulling in multiple 6-figure salaries. I wonder if that's the case?

Yep. I guess it was "hidden" until they published the method to detect the signal.

This article doesn't address the title question for me. It starts off by implying some insight into whether or not our consciousness persists or simply dissolves into nothingness, but concludes with the same old trope about our bodies matter and energy being recycled into the universe. Our matter and energy are not our consciousness, the arrangement of our matter and energy is most likely our consciousness.

"I" was perfectly fine before I was born, and therefore I'm very certain "I" will be perfectly fine after I die. That's comforting to me when I periodically have an existential crisis.

No reply - so this is just an ad then vice a genuine solicitation for peer feedback?

Why are the after pictures modifying attributes that are not part of the cosmetic adjustment? For instance, in the 'after' images skin tones are more "tan" (less pale), eye shadow is more intense, in one scene the woman is smiling vs not. All of these subtle cues make it artificially look like the cosmetic adjustment is "better" - just like all of those junk weight loss, age reversal, and muscle building before/after ads.

I actually see the value in your idea, but it looks like it still needs work to be trustworthy.

Personally, I would only trust it after seeing several 'ground truth comparisons of predicted results compared to the actual photos of people who had the procedure done.

If you're going to post an AI generated response, just say it's AI generated.

...Yeah, for the 10's of articles I actually read in a day (at least with cobcern about their validity) that amount of homework would probably blow up my screen time by 5X, and result in my divorce.

"You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer."

Agreed. If there were a simple 3rd party vetting service that currenlty trusted purveyor's of news used religiously, that in and of itself would allow me to trust said third party validator for other, perhaps non-mainstrem channels, and not trust thos who didn't use the 3rd party validator.

I'm just saying - there's a high demand for trust. One could argue that the currency of the forseable future is indeed "trust".

How do I know this entire thing isn't AI generated?

Why can't we just have a third party vetting service for true content, where the content is labeled with a serial number and URL, and I can just look it up on the third party service's site to confirm it's validity (and if the content has no serial number watermarked on it, then I just ignore it as false)???

This makes zero sense as 3rd presidential terms are barred by the 22nd Amendment. Why am I even writing this?