tshaddox

> But the reality is I'd wager that for probably 99% of the population, this is actually not true and the economics doesn't work out favorably after accounting for all the fees.

> So then, all that is really left is convenience.

But nearly all technology and services you pay for arguably boil down to “convenience,” in the sense that people in the past either did the thing themselves or survived without it.

> if there's a government agency whose job it is to deport people in a country illegally

This antecedent is false, so we don’t even need to read the consequent.

> Deporting everyone who isn't in the country legally is their mission

This is not in fact the stated mission of the agency.

> Keeping information secret is only justified if releasing it would put a person in serious danger or compromise a police/military operation.

Sure, but the obvious pro-government response is “revealing that the government is doing bad things reflects badly on the government and damages its reputation at home and abroad.”

Which is true, of course!

It obviously depends on the specific amounts of the package as well as the timeline and personal impact of the upcoming layoffs (the latter of which you can’t know).

The company doesn’t necessarily want everyone to take the package, and they’re inevitably going to price the separation benefits such that some employees would end up better off taking it and others would end up better off not taking it.

lampshade Verb

(narratology, fandom slang) To intentionally call attention to the improbable, incongruent, or clichéd nature of an element or situation featured in a work of fiction within the work itself.

I predict it’ll be less than 6 million a year at these ludicrous prices.

To be fair, the “younger replacements” have typically grown up surrounded with many more user interfaces than their predecessors, and the same is true for much of the audience they’re designing interfaces for.

Aesthetics aside, some of the specific guidance from the past is simply not as crucial as it used to be when most users were very new to smartphones or personal computers.

> Yeah but what GP is commenting on is that you can't make the argument "deplatforming is okay because free speech doesn't apply to companies" and then complain about deplatforming in this instance.

I suspect that the argument you're referring to is more like "free speech does not imply that all deplatforming is unacceptable." Again, it is not the case that the only 2 consistent views are "all deplatforming is unacceptable" or "all deplatforming is acceptable."

It is not hypocritical or contradictory to believe that deplatforming is appropriate in some cases and not in others.

Well, yes, the alternative would be the necessary number of people to do the first thing and the necessary number of people to do the second thing.

If the two needs are distributed such that it works well to have one group of full-time workers able to do both, then I reckon that’s fine.

Commercial bribery is a thing. Many places have laws against bribing an employee of a private organization to violate their duties.

Surely the only problem isn’t the knowledge of how to train and the confidence it would work. Wouldn’t it also have required a 1 or 2 order of magnitude increase in computing power over 2005-era supercomputers to be able to train a modern LLM in a reasonable time (“reasonable” meaning “finish training before GPT-3 comes out in 15 years”)?

> Things survive for no good reason.

And sometimes the “good reason” that something survives for a long time is that the better alternative was difficult to invent/discover/implement. Which is obviously not a “good reason” to oppose the introduction of better alternatives.

I don’t think it’s reasonable. The age of an idea does not imply that it’s true, valuable, or good.