skummetmaelk

Just makes it look like people jump on the virtue signalling bandwagon when they espouse opinions that aren't broadly consistent with their actions. Like eating beef several times a week, but feeling compelled to bring up the killing of pilot whales in amounts that are not at all concerning from a species conservation point of view.

That's a lot of emotional words without a single bit of context from the actual article. Your comment is better suited to FOX news' website.

The fact that you can unironically put the "only" modifier on a training time of 2.8 million GPU hours is nuts.

This is incorrect. They will quite often claim that it is possible to do without breaking encryption, as required for banking and such. They do believe it is possible to have a backdoor that will _only_ be accessible to the government. Completely ignorant of how quickly that backdoor will be found by hostile state actors.

A speech he very well may have watched live.

This is such a hilariously bad take given how much advertising is targeted towards "the poor" to extract what little they have.

Gambling ads, exploitative financial services, unhealthy "cheap" foods etc.

Also, why don't we just support the poor directly instead of requiring the construction of a consumer sentiment shaping global surveillance network?

That doesn't seem like holding two opposing thoughts. Why is balancing contradictory actions to optimize an outcome different to weighing pros and cons?

Which thing can you do that does not serve the purpose of generating desirable brain activity?

Classic failure to establish a (close to) pareto optimal regulatory structure to avoid ending up in the self-organizing Nash equillibrium which is worse for everyone.

The Price of Anarchy strikes again.

Pretty wild to love someone who does what they believe in regardless of how insane it is.

Which other useful things can they do? Spend their lives building advertising services or playing zero-sum games in financial markets?

Even if it was retroactive, which it is not, being punished for premeditated tax avoidance can hardly be called unpredictable.

The central difference of opinion is of course whether outright gaming the system is acceptable regardless of the written rules being followed to the letter.

There's not much uncertainty for business really. If you're pulling the moves that Apple and other companies pull to "optimize tax", then you are with 100% certainty trying to game the system and violating the spirit of the law.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A big reason for the Dutch and Nordic populations being better at English than the Germans, Italians, and Spaniards, is that they were simply forced to consume media in English. They had no other option. Turns out to be an advantage.