It’s the concept of a management chart as an inverted pyramid with each layer holding up and supporting the layer above them. If you imagine a promotion as working your way down the corporate pyramid, then it’s easier to see how the managers at the bottom are carrying more weight and deserving of higher pay.
As opposed to a pyramid where it’s visually represented as the broader management layers supporting the layers above them.
In a pyramid, it looks like the CEO has a cushy, overpaid job. In an inverted pyramid it looks like they have the weight and responsibility of the company on their shoulders.
Some hypothesize that flashbacks might be the brain searching for relevant useful memories, or hallucinating if it can’t find any. Or, perhaps emotions or physical issues cause your brain to function differently and it’s not an adaptive trait.
Time slowing down does seem useful in the event you can actually affect your circumstances.
The difference is the point of sale. With VS Code, you purchase your AI compute elsewhere (Anthropic, OpenAI, etc.), and then use it through the free VS Code interface.
With Warp, you purchase your AI compute through Warp (who then pays Anthropic, Open AI, etc. based on the model you choose).
> On the Build plan, you pay for what you use and credits roll over month to month.
Here’s where I got it from, but I see how it’s ambiguous. “You pay for what you use” sounds a bit like the BYOK (bring your own key) “add-on credits” pricing model you’re referring to.
But in the pricing table, they refer to monthly “AI credits”.
Their old Pro plan at $15/mo (paid annually) had 2,500/mo AI requests per month, use it or lose it.
The new Build plan at $20/mo has 1,500 AI requests, but they roll over. (Edit: apparently they don’t)
> No bones about it: this plan will be more expensive for some users and less expensive for others.
> We get that there’s a lot of whiplash in the AI devtools pricing market, and sympathize. While we expect some churn from this change, we are trying to do it in as minimally disruptive a way as possible.
I’ve found Warp to be very useful, but you’re really paying for AI compute, not the terminal. And the AI compute space is getting very competitive.
* The casino takes a rake, so you lose money every hand, but you only win when the fish bets and loses. You’re also expected to tip the dealer
* Everything is on camera and dealers remember players, so there will be a lot of witnesses and evidence
* Seats often open one at a time, so you’d potentially lose money at other tables waiting to play together. Or, you all show up at once and ask to start a new table together, which would get suspicious.
* If you don’t know the fish’s cards, there’s still a chance you lose and lose big
> Because they would be smart enough to know the societal damage they caused by this revelation and they did it anyways...
That seems like a human-centric perspective.
Maybe they’re a cooperative, altruistic society with an innate desire to help, and maybe had been helped by others before. To not teach us about the imminent dangers of the universe might seem unconscionable to them.
Or maybe they’re a highly ordered society with an innate common goal and see nothing wrong with asking other entities to join their mission.
Sure, some humans may view their contact as intrusive or harmful, but that doesn’t mean they automatically would as well.
If I had to bet, I’d bet you’re right, but the universe is a big place and who knows what societies might be out there that would feel totally foreign to us.
Hopefully there’s a similar “don’t make me think” mantra that comes to AI product design.
I like the trend where the agent decides what models, tooling and thought process to use. That seems to me far more powerful than asking users to create solutions for each discreet problem space.
While a mainstream newsworthy story, I fail to see how it “gratifies one's intellectual curiosity” or is “Anything that good hackers would find interesting.”
> I always bring up that whole news cycle in 2017 about a potential war with North Korea. How many people spent time and energy on that, and how do they feel about that now? Media is adversarial
And then there are tons of counter examples: "no way Russia will invade Ukraine", "Hitler will stop at Poland", etc. then the opposite happens. How do those people feel? Did they dismiss the stories warning of imminent conflict as adversarial media hysteria?
Expecting people to correctly follow a news story or not based on an unknown future outcome is impossible.
If you can consistently bat above .500 in predicting the news, there's a lot of money to be made in prediction markets.
A good deal is spent explaining rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the effects of CO2 on cognition, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me how indoor CO2 levels would be rising. Towards the end, here is their explanation:
> in steady state, indoor CO2 concentration is always at least as high as the outdoor concentration (as neither generation nor ventilation rate can be negative) and simply scales with the ratio of generation to ventilation. For reasonable values of G and Q for elementary school students (0.004 L/s per student) and classrooms (10 L/s per student), respectively, a ratio G/Q equates to 400 ppm (Persily, 2018; Persily & de Jonge, 2017). Under such assumptions, then, an outdoor CO2 concentration of 477 ppm (411 ppm as in 2019, plus a 66‐ppm urban enhancement) would equate to 877 ppm inside the classroom upon reaching equilibrium.
The equation and explanation can be found about 60% of the way down.
In both scenarios, it really depends on how many alternative options for income you have available.