That misses the mark here. Every other Kelley's claim has also been unsourced and not cited. I was able to guess that the integration might've simply been something which happened after they'd once not had it.
Given the lack of due diligence here, it seems Kelley's intentions weren't to be objective potrayal of truth but whatever was most damaging.
The "some good" part reads like it exists as a buffer between other parts which don't sound objective, but rather defensive and personally angry.
> Fun fact: people talk to each other.
The intention here seems to indicate that Jared could've never known that could happen. It doesn't sound like professional feedback and more how you talk to someone during after a road rage incident.
And the fact that immediately after no "personal criticism" he proceeds to call his behavior "fantasy fever dream." Sometimes presentation matters as much as factuality.
The lack of sources and citation for a pretty one-sided claim doesn't help either.
His expectations might've been that an unsuspecting reader might accidentally gloss over the name unprofessional name calling earlier, which weren't necessarily cited or sourced justifying him.
It's good to agree that some don't have a conscience, and maintaining an appearance matters more. And appearances change based on what's legal or not.
They could detect the other AI labs and also silently burn the tokens at a faster rate providing fewer tokens for money, which does sound illegal to me.
The comments only further prove that without more regulation around this, big AI wouldn't have a "don't be evil" attitude going forward.
There seems to be a lot of discussion on economic incentives (harder to raise, stronger pensions and less personal involvement) and other modes of entertainment being the reason for this trend, but I wonder if it could be attributed to more understanding on proper upbringing and awareness of such, and self-doubt on people to meet that demands.
Maybe the TV and schooling discussed is indirectly related, such as better understanding of proper upbringing, or more ways to see how things can be messed up, and having larger support group beyond family (and children) for said women in poorer countries.
In general there is more focus put on raising a child better and more involvement beyond hedonistic, time or economic reasons and better parenting expected that some don't think they meet the needs or find it harder to do the same for more than one child.
This is a bit of extrapolating from a small anecdotal group, but I wonder how statistically significant said group is.
I went down a bit of a search looking for counter evidence that crypto is likely less available to them, and it turns out both perspectives are true depending on the scale you look at. At the micro-level, survey data from emerging markets[0] confirms that crypto offers immunity against institutional failure and inflationary currency.
But this QJE article[1] argues there's a ceiling to how far things scale. Concluding that the cost to keep a decentralized network secure scales with its total economic value. So while there is immediate value to it's user, it might not scale well, and can't replace a country's financial system anyway because securing it at a sovereign scale would just be more expensive.
Ante has some points on this issue: https://antelang.org/blog/why_effects. All of this is just different syntax in other languages and solved but the abstraction provided seems to be neater.
I'm quite surprised by how the HN audience has multiple stakeholders with deep expertise and lived experience associated with any post, without all the generalisation and hollow speculation present elsewhere. And these comments get posted quite quickly too.
Oops, I thought your claim was about the consonant sound /b/ vs /v/. I had the British /bi:tə/ in my mind, and forgot that Americans used /beɪtə/, which I agree is closer to the American pronunciation if your 'ay's are not diphthongised.
Funny enough, I went to double-check the IPA and realized the textbook classical Attic should be reconstructed as /ɛ/, so /bɛːta/ anyway. Which is still closer to the American version as both are open front vowels.
It turns out that while /bɛːta/ is the old academic reconstruction, statistical analyses of spelling mistakes from then shows that Athenians had already closed that vowel to /e:/ or even all the way to the modern /i:/ sound as early as 500 BC. So the how they spoke daily was even messier.
The modern academic consensus is that "η" was likely pronounced like the "e" in "met" but longer. In IPA, it'd be /e:/. And thus "β" as /be:ta/. What you are saying is how it is done in modern Greek though.
Given the lack of due diligence here, it seems Kelley's intentions weren't to be objective potrayal of truth but whatever was most damaging.