scratcheee

You’re not wrong, if someone is willing to let family, friends, hobbies, etc fall to the wayside and dedicate themselves to work above all else, that isn’t inherently wrong, and could be a satisfying life.

But do consider the implications. I’d argue that the compensation you need to seek changes. Working for others in such a context is throwing away the only autonomy you have (having discarded other avenues), so if work is your life, you really need to work for yourself, or at least own and control your working conditions to some extent. Otherwise you’re just a hamster in a wheel. Clearly money is of little value once you decide to forgo any real use of money. The only thing you can trade for your work is ownership of the product you produce.

Whomsoever

I can believe that 100x the exposure is a lowball estimate, but surely the danger is much much lower? Like it’s low enough we still struggle to define it, compared to asbestos which was incredibly deadly just on a 2 decade delay compared to most deadly things.

We’d know by now if plastic was anything like asbestos, it’s been around for long enough.

Hah! Some jobs just make you a social pariah no matter how interesting.

I think if I thought I’d wasted a paycheck on a broken gadget I’d feel blind panic for a second, I’d eventually think through the reality that they’ll probably cover such an obvious fault, but I’d still feel incredibly stupid for wasting my money at first.

Of course, that’s why i wouldn’t buy this thing in the first place, but i can empathise with those who were less willing to wait and see.

Or maybe AfD hasn’t targeted you for other reasons, so you’re not fighting against a marketing team to avoid the videos, only against the “pure” form of the algorithm.

Not going to support the “stupid” claim, I suspect the French public do have alternative solutions to their predicament in mind, some better than others no doubt, but ill take a stab at the answer: Context: The French government is underfunded, their debt burden is not healthy and if nothing changes they’re headed towards Greek-style economic problems (ie cost of debt gets too high, nobody trusts them enough to lend them the money they need, default could mean nobody will lend them money in future, so high risk, but avoiding default could mean enforced austerity as conditions of bailouts, which would be far more painful than just a retirement age change). Answer: Increasing the retirement age increases the working population (ie taxable population) and decreases the pension burden, so it’s one of the most effective levers to ease the costs to the government. The downside of course is it’s reneging on a contract with their own population, people working their whole lives with the promise of retirement are understandably not impressed when the goalposts are moved.

I mean, I’d assume that’s the case regardless of the wording. They’re giving you a device on a repeating lease. If you piss them off (ie release publicly when they’re not ready, regardless of who’s at fault for screwing up the disclosure timing), then they’ll take their toys away in a huff.

That’s only in the short term. It doesn’t touch on natures capacity to bounce back over millions of years. We could kill off entire branches and trunks of the tree of life, crash every ecosystem on the planet, and life would still bounce back eventually. Molds would grow on the debris, some would find the slurry of radioactive plastics a tasty treat, and eventually it would rebuild.

We could ruin the planet in the “short” term, but we probably cannot extinguish life, even if we tried our hardest.

They’re not software engineers, they’re software farmers. Very different kind of job

They are meaning experiments in the sense of adjusting the state of the thing being experimented upon. Astrophysics and economics experiments are both limited to adjusting the way we collect the data, not the subject itself (you can’t practically poke a star or an economy with a stick). Presumably the reason they’re using this line in the sand is that it is the key technique to separate correlation from causation, which is a limitation that tends to be more of a problem in economics than astrophysics (but certainly does frustrate in both fields).

The real problem of course is that economics is like astrophysics with only 1 star (or maybe 100 stars that bump into each other constantly… the analogy is imperfect)

You could argue in return that humans only have electro-chemistry as our one perceivable dimension. We only indirectly perceive light through the signals our eyes send to our brains.

In my mind general intelligence is pretty much by definition a virtual machine, so the mechanisms behind thought are only relevant for the sake of efficiency (ie you can argue that LLMs make a poor basis for intelligence because tokens and natural language are a poor way to encode the world, but if you can run it on a big enough computer to counteract the inherent wasteful virtualisation then who really cares how it works under the hood?)

Not how it works in the UK, everyone pays into public single-payer healthcare, but you’re free to buy your own private healthcare on top if you like.

Depends, if the only id checks are performed by trained officials/administrators for legally significant purposes then yeah I’d agree.

But if you need to be ID checked entering a club or just buying a beer… they’re not training for that, and they’re not buying the hardware to handle it automatically either. Looking at a photo is an appropriate level of security for that purpose.

Which is why work on fixing contrails is so important, it’d be insane to leave 50% improvement at a tiny cost unresolved whilst clawing back small percentage efficiency gains in co2 release from incremental and hideously expensive engine improvements.

We need to do both of course, but contrails should’ve been resolved the moment they were identified as so significant, it’s frustrating how slowly the industry responds to such an enormous opportunity (“we halved our climate impact last year” would be easy marketing)