nobodywillobsrv

Keep in mind banks are NOW regulated but the regulations came After the bad event not before.

Regulations probably help but they basically serve to keep evolutionary memory in place in a corporate ecosystem where companies can spawn from nothing.

Bad banks no longer exist but regulations, after an extinction event, perhaps try to make that evolutionary event permanent.

At least that is my mental model.

Regulations are very lagging. And they should be understood to create moats and friction. There is no free lunch. Regulations purposefully shrink or destroy markets. That is how markets work.

Something I wish tech folks would absorb more.

If it's not frustrating and stupid, (to you at the time) it's probably not really a regulation.

Not just regulated. This is why banks are banks. This is why everything is slow!

When everything goes wrong the only defense is to be slow enough to fix it.

This idea that there are shortcuts that you can be decentralised and fast at any size is wrong.

I would assume binance is more like a bad bank but without the internal friction to make stuff like this hard.

As an applied mathematician who went into industry and has friends still in academia it's quite interesting.

My view is that the people who think doing maths is about being able to knit maths quickly and correctly are quite sad.

But for the people like me who bound themselves to computers a long time ago, it feels like a revolution. Sure you might now be simply tending your garden of machines and allocating capital and resources like a Gardiner picks seeds for various sunny spots but you can now do a lot of stuff and for people were good at gardening but not knitting it is a game changer.

Regardless of whether this is true or not you have basically described the UK and how people think about a Russian invasion.

You already have elites siding against their own people and tyrannically collecting taxes and giving it to their Mercenary base.

It isn't hard to imagine a benevolent Sea People offering to free the locals from their despotic elite.

The Bronze Age would not have had the same migration structures obviously but one might imagine it happening locally.

What is funny is that a lot of these explanations of what happened seem to fly in the face of what people find is possible to ascribe to situations now.

I think a journey with multiple agents to collect information would give you a more complete picture on data points.

Ask for DNA and what is known.

Climate records and what is known.

Town losses and movements. In some places inhabitants seemingly moved way way up the mountains all of a sudden. This is usually associated with conflict or tidal waves.

Migration evidence.

And any other disease or food shocks.

One must also be careful to understand the data observation process and to justify any belief that the collapse is not merely absence of observations.

Let's add latency and bill the client for literally every thought they have and every interaction with every system!

It feels a bit like how Amazon and META purposefully do not create search that can actually help you filter for exactly what you want.

There are incentives to create products that work just barely, just enough for you to use them and don't leave for elsewhere but then they want to maximize everything else like the probability you view side products or ads or just click around and type and generate more data.

Unless someone else offers something better they will offer something that is basically as bad as they can get away with so long as there are benefits to them for doing so..

Physical land is quite different. And if squatting is legal, it makes a kind of tax of ownership and also means that any registry is invalid.

If you are saying the physical house only and not the land that is different yes. Someone who can move the house obviously should still own the house. Trespassing usually doesn't invalidate ownership of all your belongings.

More important is the meta concept of like we write confusing contracts and then execute them and we agree on an end date (all transactions done) and then informally and implicitly we agree that if anything was wrong you only have z years after close date to fix it.

This is kind of thing where big people can do it themselves and other people perhaps need a regulated entity to review their docs ... Like mortgages and what not.

The interesting thing here would be if the IRS decides to have an opinion ...

A lot missing from this analysis.

Usually due to discomfort of the analysis.

It would be interesting to pull the data and control for demographics and then some kind of educational factor and social media factor

The problem is the interviewer though.

There is no fixing an interviewer who doesn't understand the answers really. You need a third party for that.

Have had weird interviews with people who don't introduce themselves and assume that I definitely am interested in whatever the job is even though I know nothing and proceed to ask questions that amount to "how does palantir work" and get irritated when the answer isn't "we used database X".

Fundamentally one needs a meta approach that handles these cases too without knowing who is interviewing who. Could an interviewee give feedback like this without sounding arrogant?

Whole this might be true, one thing that is missing is the kinds of interviews where the candidate feels like the interviewer didn't make sense or they didn't expect it to be an interview at all at that point as it was supposed to be a chat about the team and whether it was a fit at all in the first place.

It also doesn't cover the case of junior interviewers interviewing more experienced people either by accident or by design.

There are a lot of failure modes that could simply turn into useful conversations with this approach I think.

This feels frustrating.

They are comparing "same buildings" with AI but I would imagine they are not controlling cost.

Imagine gargoyles and metal dragons on drainpipes and all the ornamentation now and how much that would cost.

People prefer ancient dry stone walls over fences but they cost orders of magnitude differently.

I wonder if with robots and what not if we will see a resurgence in detail and ornamentation and other kinds of expensive but nice constructions.

But in chemical science you would not "understand" everything. You cook with ingredients where you don't fully understand then.

There are always limits.

Engineering human types are often guilty of saying something is low cost but then not doing it themselves. Great, "understand everything".

Trust us trust. You trust an entity. What the author is describing is a new kind of transaction. It's not that AI causes people to lie suddenly (although if you trusted the wrong people this might happen to you, but YOU were wrong then) but now you have a lot of work being done more at the edge of uncertainty and recommendations. Ideas are not ideas anymore, they are working implementations.

So instead of submitting discussions or requests for features, you literally submit implemented features because the cost is lower. This is good. You just have to realize that you are starting the discussion with a working implementation. If you continually try to act like this is not the case, without someone literally lying to you about it, this is more about just accepting a now workflow.

This is the kind of writing that I assume the people who read the NYT or Atlantic enjoy.

The content is good but yes it's like there is a different class of people that really want to FEEL like they are reading. They are doing THE WORK.

The real annoying thing it seems is mostly that openai is presumably doing this for internal reasons and this marginally increases the cost to users with no real gain.

It would be one thing to gain from it but removing prestige wins from customers AND reducing compute support just feels like being ultra mean if you zoom out.

If this was racing to cure cancer ahead of researchers we wouldn't be writing about this on HN.