rickydroll

Good to know. I figured I'd start with Gemini because if I used Claude, I'd probably get addicted to the results. Then I would have to commission a velvet painting of me dressed in Dickensian beggar clothes with big eyes and a quivering lower lip, holding my hands out, asking for tokens.

In my experience, (using 3.8 flash) the Google models do a fairly good job at summary notes and simple documentation (do this, do that). It doesn't seem to be as bad as Claude for producing headache-inducing text.

It might even make it searchable.

Personal Panama Papers? :)

I believe this makes a lot of sense. Hopefully we also have a smart meter one could use to get quick feedback on water use, so homeowners can see how changing their behavior reduces water use in the same way that a smart meter for electricity gives us the same feedback for reducing energy use.

Even without the economic incentive, I've turned off the lawn irrigation installed by previous owners, use soaker or drip irrigation in my berry and vegetable gardens, and water ornamental plants only when they're really in distress during our summertime droughts. It's amazing how soil can go from moist and wonderful in the spring to desiccated powder in a summer drought.

Coming soon, we'll be replacing the front yards with creeping thyme and maybe wild strawberries. I do need to see if wild strawberries, though, are a groundhog buffet. I hate those little fuckers.

You're taxed on income, like anyone else, but the big difference is that wealthy people get liquid cash through tricks like borrow, spend, die. They also have other ways to gain wealth that don't involve a cash phase.

I'll get hate from some corners on this, but I'm coming to see the wisdom in not significantly increasing the tax rate on the rich, but instead broadening the tax base. For example, count tricks like borrow, spend, die as cash; make stock buybacks illegal; treat compensation in the form of assets as cash income at the valuation price when the transfer happens; count inheritances above $X million as income, cash income.

My artisanal guillotine business becomes financially viable. In fact, it may even become a unicorn.

Or strengthen your partnership with your dog by hiking together and working on agility training, tracking trials, and obedience.

Build a garden and harvest food, creating a bee- and butterfly-friendly environment while watching the little beasties feed on the bounty supplied by the plants' sex organs.

With the magic of grit and glass, make a telescope, then spend evenings observing with your organic eye, planets, and waiting for those moments of atmospheric stability and clarity when you see the most amazing detail.

AI won't keep me from any of these things, but the need for money to live does.

Good find! Thanks.

The question I have is what is copyright for? As far as I can tell, it is used for censorship, and rent extraction.

All copyright does is give you standing to sue if somebody reproduces your work, in whole or in part. To sue "successfully," you need more financial resources than the copier.

The small artist copyright is a red herring. I think the number of small artists who make money from their work is frightfully small. For example, my partner makes some rather nice jewelry that is different from anything out there. We're doing the craft fair circuit to see if she can sell any and if it's worth continuing to make them.

She sells a relatively small number of pieces at each fair. Occasionally it's even enough to cover expenses.

Would copyright help her? No, because we wouldn't have the money to sue. Small copyright violations might be worth a cease and desist. Large copyright violations would have more money than us for the lawsuit. We would need that Goldilocks-sized violation. They are small enough to be responsive to the threat of a lawsuit but big enough that they have enough money that would be worthwhile suing them, i.e. enough to pay our lawyer.

I want an electric car that isn't bound to the stealership and isn't a ticking time bomb when they stop maintaining the software. If my car doesn't go for 200,000 miles, I feel like I was cheated.

The thought that discipline would eliminate the need for statins or GLP-1s is a nice fantasy. It appears that all it does is increase stress on the patient and make them feel like crap because they're blaming themselves for something out of their biological control.

When I had high cholesterol, I tried diet, which didn't touch it. I tried 9 statins, failed on all of them. Niacin didn't work. And now I stab myself every two weeks with Praluent, and it works beautifully. I'm looking forward to fewer heart attacks.

Diet and exercise didn't bring down my blood sugar numbers enough, and I've tried several drugs that didn't work for one reason or another, but now the GLP-1s seem to work where others didn't.

As far as I'm concerned, they're essential tools.