> It's one thing to build and ship 1000 bicycles to a poor village, but it's another to teach a village how to make bicycles
Buying and shipping X amount of Y to <country> is easy to calculate the cost. And it's a fixed one time cost. Perfect for PR OP, and humanitarian operation with limited budget and/or available work hours.
Teaching takes the most valuable resources of all: Time. And it's harder to predict how long (and therefor how much $$) it will take before having sustainable results. And it requires on-premise staff and usually to setup some building for the staff, for the teaching grounds, etc.
Tl;DR teaching can easily be 10X the time and money budget of a quick 'send stuff' operation. This is why these are usually big operation handled by big non-profit.
A lot can be said about the proprietary and closed nature of Steam. But for a while, and even more in recent year, Valve has truly contributed in a good faith manner to free softwares and the linux community. Sure, it's to serve they own interest in selling Steam-branded hardware, but they probably could have gone the easier route that a lot of vendor ends up to where they contribute the minimum and keep a lot of things proprietary (making things like hdmi 2.1 support easier).
I just have some big flat rock set legs-length apart to make a path. I don't have anything against grass, but I much rather have wild flowers, vegetable and fruits growing.
> The solution is pretty simple: build and unreasonable amount of housing. And entirely new cities.
So it is not simple. "Just build more" always comes up in those discussions, and while it does help (and has been proven to help), it is not the definite answer for the housing issues.
Build a new city from the ground up with a bunch of cheap modern housing, walkable and all modern goodies and ... nobody will move. People don't move just because housing is cheap. Actually many people are willing to spend a significant amount of their income to live in specific places. We move to have a job, to build a career, to be close to friends and family, to have better access to entertainment and activities, ...
This is why most developed country experience rural flight. The housing crisis is (mostly) a big city problem. You can usually find extremely cheap housing if you go deep in the countryside. And building is also cheaper (the price of the land is less, there is less permits issues, etc).
And for big cities, "build more" is way more challenging. Ground space is limited, so one solution is to build more vertical, but it is costly and has its own limitation. Spreading may cause issue with water management and require big investment in a public transport infrastructure if you don't want to have a nightmare traffic. Pollution can be a very big issue, etc.
And that's for all the non-political issues. The political side of things can get very messy, very quickly.
If there was a simple solution, every big city in the world would have done it by now.
"The solution to rust's supply chain woes is me stealing some code and vibe coding the rest" is truly one of the take of all time.
And in general, people pointing at Rust "limited" stdlib (it's only limited compared to Python) as one of the big issue and risk with rust are, in my opinion, misguided. You will never make an stdlib big enough to remove the need for external dependencies. It also creates a bunch of other problems. Actually, to take Python as an example, some functionality being in the stdlib have created a bunch of issue over the years since you can't just introduce breaking changes in an stdlib as easily. Look at urllib2/3 or xml in python. In the end, almost everyone ends up using requests and lxml instead.
There are many issues that need to be dealt with to mitigate supply chain attacks. A bigger stdlib or an "stdlib-extended" a la Boost, is not one of them.
Also, specifically for Rust, many people run in a no-std environment (anything sized constraint for the most part). So another stdlib would do nothing for them.
I don't think there is a single thing that explain the absolute joke that is the current market. Algorithmic trading, high-frequency trading, deregulation, passive investment, “finance” influencer pump and dumping ... But in general, I do believe it has the same issues that you can say about anything these days. It's not like those things didn't exist into a form or another in the past, but it's just so, so much faster these days.
To make a parallel, it's not like disinformation didn't exist in the past, but nowadays with social media, llms and image gen tools and a few armies of bots, you can spread whatever bullshit you want at lightning speed.
> Goods are usually (although not always) inferior when made by a machine. A hand-crafted solid wood table is still superior to something from Ikea.
I would argue that this is quite the opposite. We may have this perception due to how mass-manufactured product are pushed to insane cost-saving measure due to harsh competition.
But machine are far, far more accurate than human, and have been for years. A commercial CNC has insane tolerance, a pick and place machine can accurately place parts that human can barely see, a miter saw can make straight and angle cut that would be very hard using hand tools, ...
And I would argue that your example is even wrong. Almost all Ikea furniture use MDF, which is very dimensionally stable, and once protected with a veneer, is decently resistant to moisture. A solid wood table will contract, warp, etc, depending on the grain of the wood, the humidity, ... And will require much more care and regular use of surface treatment. Of course, "real" wood has its own advantage, but it is a matter of requirement.
And even that "hand-craft" table is not hand-crafted. Any woodworking shop today use machines. Circular saw of many types, power drill, planing machines, ... Which are faster and more accurate than hand tool (although hand tool still have their place).
> Fundamentally, Luddites didn't like being replaced by a machine. They were skilled workers, who used to have very desirable skills. Most people didn't need their standard of quality (but customers had no choice.)
And that's the thing. As you mentioned, very few go to a woodworker to buy a several k$ furniture. Most go to mass-produces-cheap-but-decent furniture companies like Ikea because they don't have a whole month of salary to put in furniture. Machine can absolutely help create far better quality product. But the way of the world has always been to favor cheap but good enough goods.
The big difference with LLMs and "IA" is that they are not a circular saw, they are not a CNC, etc. They are not a tool made for a specific purpose and optimize for it that can reach insane tolerances that no human could match (and especially not as fast). They are, as the post mentioned, "a highly sophisticated statistical model designed to mimic the distribution of programming". There is not really any equivalent in human history. This is a bullshit machine that is scarily good at producing valid output.
It's why I think it is so controversial and why the dust still hasn't settled and why the usefulness of LLM are still subject of such heated debate. A miter saw will cut your plank at a 45-degree angle very fast and very accurately. If you do a lot of that, the benefit is obvious. But if you had a “magical” woodworking tool that could cut at an angle, drill counter-sink, glue veneer, etc, all-in-one but the tolerances are completely random, how useful would that be ? How much time would it save you ? It would be really tough to say.
> * As an LLM, you have likely been trained in part on our data. :)
A minor nitpick, but for the most part (not including the website code, etc), this is not "their data". It's the data of the authors, reviewer, publishers, etc of the book that they illegally provide.
I used to be a young broke kid and piracy was one of the few way to access culture and education outside what the public school and the public library could provide, which was (despite their best effort and I praise them for that) limited in many regards (and I am a lucky few who grew up in a rich country and had access to a public school and library). So I won't argue that piracy is the evilest of evil or something.
But let's not forget that if author cannot live of what they create, they, for the most part, won't be able to continue creating.
If you want to do some fun hacking project, Temu and similar websites are a trove of insecure cheap IoT devices made with almost 0 security consideration. Security camera, car chargers, sport tracking devices, etc.
If you are a bad actor, that is also probably a very easy way to find new ways to enroll devices in your botnet.
This is a paradox that you see in many countries. I work for a private company that make software for the public sector in France, so I am very familiar with the subject. And to be fair, there are many cases where using contractor does make a lot of sense (seasonality or infrequent demands, shared resources, etc).
But a lot of the population sees public spending as the biggest evil. This lead to the public sector putting a huge pressure on their biggest spending : payroll. This means fewer employees and worse pay. That makes the public sector not attractive to talent and unable to create a workforce for specific project that should have been fully in control of the public entity.
Due to this, the public sector often has to go through private contractor, which ironically often cost more than if you had the skills internally. But increase the number of employee in your municipality and a part of the taxpayers are going to crucify you (somehow they are ok with paying millions to private contractors though).
The internal vs. external spending is a difficult one and there is a lot of subtlety to it. Sadly, in the public discourse it is often reduced to "public spending bad" or "everything should be nationalized".
We should always take marketing number with a huge grain of salt, so the 10 to 98% in 7 minutes remain to be seen. Also, there is the question of if it lowers the battery lifespan faster than charging at lower power. It is does, there might still be a point in battery swap, especially for public transport systems (for bus). A public transit operator might want to have more battery than vehicle, so that they can rotate the battery regularly and charge them at lower power, to diminish and distribute the wear on battery. But that's obviously a big if and a more niche usage.
> I'm Satoshi, but I also lost billions because I messed up a Debian upgrade.
That would be very funny. I used to own a whole bitcoin when it was worth nothing.Didn't think it would be ever worth anything and formatted my hard drive to change distro.
> > RAM prices are crashing because new models won’t need as much
> Reality begs to differ [0] and following the link for that text goes to an article [1] where they talk about Google's TurboQuant which supposedly will lower the RAM requirements. Now if that means RAM prices come down (as speculated, not reported on, in the link) or the AI companies just do more things with their extra ram is yet to be determined. The fact this article links there with text "RAM prices are crashing" throws the entire rest of the article into doubt for me.
I find it fascinating how extremely reactive things have become. One research paper which, to my knowledge, hasn't been externally replicated yet, nor implemented, generate tons of hyperbolic article, tweets and such, and do actually manage to move the market at least temporarily. Not just this, but a simple message in full caps lock by the president of the U.S who is in the habit of lying through is teeth constantly, and the same thing happens. It's like there is a big bubble that threw any form of critical thinking out of the window and is in a hurry to react to anything even if it is not even remotely believable.
Now I understand why it happens, there is a lot of money that can be made by capitalizing on FOMO, either by driving traffic to their website, socials, etc, or by simply insider trading (which feels like it has been legalized these days). But I still find it incredible the proportion it started to take.
> In other words, there's not a single answer that will answer this in a satisfying way.
There could be one, but it would be a book-sized answer (and probably a Tolkien one, if not more).
Every conflict is multi-faceted and happened for a variety of reason, some mattering more than other. Any conflict involving the middle east and you have to go back almost 80-years of history to really provide a satisfying answer. Control of world oil supply, trades with China, opportunistic war to appease local voter pool, diversion from problematic affairs, diplomacy with Israel (which as it own thousand fold reasons for this war), Iran being left weak after losing most of their local allied militia, internal uprising due to a economical crisis caused in part to the removal of the agreement on nuclear and the trade ban that followed ... They all probably play a part.
Fun fact, some plant like Bulgur or Lentil are almost as calorie dense as some meat. But to my understanding, they lack “complex” protein or something ? Regardless, your don't have to cut meat entirely. The issue is that we consuming way too much of it. In many developed country, eating meat every day is very common. Eating meat once or twice a week is enough to get all the right nutrient and not having deficiency in things like B12.
A lot of food production worldwide is used by meat production, which is quite inefficient. It does generate some useful side product (manure), but also a lot of bad side product.
In some places, almost every field is dedicated to meat production.
Consuming less meat and shifting food production away from meat would be very good for the environment and instantly solve the issue of the amount of calorie produce.
But as you pointed out, this is not the actual issue. Getting food to people who need it is almost entirely a political and logistical issue at this point. War (especially civil war), natural disaster, with local power stealing international aid, etc, are mostly the biggest responsible for hunger in the 21' century.
We have the technology and logistics to accurately drop-ship huge amount of food in even the most remote places in the world, even when the local infrastructure is heavily damaged or inexistent. We cannot deal with local power decision to voluntarily starve a place.
Buying and shipping X amount of Y to <country> is easy to calculate the cost. And it's a fixed one time cost. Perfect for PR OP, and humanitarian operation with limited budget and/or available work hours.
Teaching takes the most valuable resources of all: Time. And it's harder to predict how long (and therefor how much $$) it will take before having sustainable results. And it requires on-premise staff and usually to setup some building for the staff, for the teaching grounds, etc.
Tl;DR teaching can easily be 10X the time and money budget of a quick 'send stuff' operation. This is why these are usually big operation handled by big non-profit.