vampirical

Why do you think there's something to be gained here? There are a lot of cheap and easy checks this content fails that it represents a well formed argument based on reality.

To me at least this appears to be a smoking gun for the creator not being able to function in good faith. Whether that's intentional or self delusion, who knows.

From the page itself, "A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA." This point is trotted out and reframed multiple times on the page but it's literally self contradictory. It's not something you can't do in California, it's something you can't do without approval in the Bay Area Air District.

It's not a good place to be doing such an activity, as the area already can't successfully keep the air healthy enough to stay within federal limits due to environmental factors that trap particulate low to the ground. If you're at all familiar with the area you know concerns about air quality are not overblown and. Go further away from people or meet strict VOC regulations if you absolutely need to be doing that kind of work in the area, seems completely reasonable to me.

I think there’s a simpler explanation. Apple’s always uses a type of product metric that most companies don’t use. Those competitor products don’t care about phone battery drain, so they aren’t even trying to do anything about it.

Please re-read what you’ve written in these two comments with a critical eye. You’re speaking from a lack of knowledge without very much care and reaching incorrect conclusions that agree with your initial bias. When someone else does the work of helping nudge you towards reality you seem to be doing a poor job correcting. Sorry if this comes across as rude, it’s said with the kindest of intentions.

You can also do the reverse gesture, a small swipe up from the bottom of the screen, to return to full screen.

You were demonstrably wrong three times in your comment, misrepresenting the reality of both sides of the argument and the prevailing opinion of humanity. The fact that one side doesn’t have the tools to confidently reach that conclusion is the problem.

Which doesn’t matter in the slightest. What’s our best understanding of what’s objectively true? That one side is actually stupid, insane, or evil.

I at least, am out of patience for sophistry as if this is just a normal and innocent difference of perspective.

You’re probably going to think I’m very presumptuous but I’m going to say this anyway in case it is helpful for you.

If people are frequently offended when you speak on a topic you’re probably being offensive somehow through content or delivery.

In my experience the thought “[they] feel threatened anytime something is expressed that differs from […]” is not accurate and it also turns off your brain on trying to figure out what is actually going on. I can recommend from personal experience a small apology and transition to more listening in that moment. If more feels appropriate, giving it some time and space and re-engaging gently to discover what went on for them in that moment can yield a lot of value for both sides.

I think you're accidentally telling on yourself here. You're looking at somebody getting a result which is surprising to you but rather than being curious about how they might be on to something you're turning off your brain and assuming they're malfunctioning.

Something being in a category, such as "a study", doesn't tell you much about a thing. If you read multiple studies on vaccine safety critically and reason about them and what experts are saying about them, IMO most functional human being are going to reach the same general conclusion about vaccine safety. If you do the same thing on studies about seed oils or aspartame you're also going to come to the conclusion that they're safe! If you're not reaching these same results it doesn't necessary mean you're the one who is malfunctioning but you should seriously consider it and try again to learn what you might not know.

I’ll second what my sibling poster said but also…

From my perspective iOS already has pretty good call/text blocking. Are you sure you know all the existing features?

For calling, there’s a built-in contacts only mode behind a single opt-in switch, this is what I use. There’s also a privacy preserving app system that allows you to install third party apps which provide block lists and labeling to the phone app.

Messages is similar, except with unknowns being put in a separate list and an older and simpler static block list, though it does also support reporting the message as junk which presumably means all iOS devices have a bit of a shared message spam filter.

Just a bystander but you just quoted this: > My whole premise is that it doesn’t have better than human intelligence. Everyone glosses over how we go from ChatGPT 4 failing its own unit tests to geometrically self-improving hyper-intelligence.

Then did exactly what the quote is talking about, assuming we achieve better than human intelligence. > But you seem to think there's some barrier that means that even if it was a better-than-human programmer (implicitly for general-intelligence reasons), it wouldn't be able to geometrically self-improve.

The question is how exactly do we go from a below human intelligence to an above human intelligence. Without a clear path to that reality, making trade offs in order to protect against low probability worse case scenarios which require it doesn’t look like a good deal.

The reality that right now human level intelligences have a hard time even keeping these below human intelligence systems operating seems like a useful checkpoint. Maybe we can hold off on doing distasteful things like consolidating control until they can at least wipe their own bottoms as it were.

See my reply to justrealist's sibling comment to yours.

Why wouldn’t they be able to multi-app? As far as I can tell this is double talk. “If we have to W2 them we will make a condition of employment that they can’t be clocking hours in multiple apps at once.” That is the only explanation I can see for why there’d be any issue. At least in California there is no law that would restrict either company or employee in such a way, in fact the case law on non competes seems to lean the other direction with preference given to workers not being restricted from practicing their trade except in very limited circumstances. So they’re creating a straw man unworkable situation that would only be created by them pushing an unworkable system and supporting employment agreement.

There are many alternative ways to structure this relationship. Many with just as much or more chance of being long term sustainable for all parties than the current model which definitely works for one party but we have good evidence is not sustainable and workable for all the workers some of whom are being chewed through and exploited.