I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.

a lot of people determine what is right by who is on that side - the right side is the group that they identify with, and the wrong side is the group they dislike.

And you get the hilarious (if not sad) situations often, where the exact same actions is wrong if committed by one group, and right if done by some other group.

Maybe I dislike a party because they're wrong, not that I think they're wrong becuase I dislike them? I usually don't have any reason to like or dislike a party until I see behaviour.

Some people think that justice should be blind, and that’s long been an ideal in the US.

I'm just so sick of people in our tribe who REFUSE to ever name their enemies. We're doing everything in good faith against people who hate us and want us to die. It's silly, and standing on some principle of equality while we continually lose over and over is sad to watch

It's a matter of integrity. Support or oppose whoever you like, but if you change your principles based on the person in question, then you don't have principles at all.

Are you pro or anti touchdown? Do you support or oppose winning? Is supporting my allies winning and enemies losing wrong?

Why not, people are different and principles can account for that. It might mean that your alignment isn't fully lawful.

Support your allies, yes.

Think everything they do is right? Hell no.

And every once in a while you need to check if your list of allies should change.

It leads to keeping the bad people on your "side" just because they share some of the values

> It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

No, the hilarious part is that the "educated liberal bubble" will do exactly that thing, and then wonder why everyone else is seeing them as crazies; because they'd rather side with bad actors on their side purely because other side is attacking them, no matter the reason.

And of course, not only them. It's natural human herd behavior. And it leads to absolutely terrible end results

The crime is the crime. No matter the leaning of the criminal

What happens is that it takes the form of attributing bad things to enemies and good things to allies, such that you are blind to where your allies are not your allies. If your allies are acting opposed to your interests but you like them because they signal to you as an in group, then you are being fooled by them. Thus, it is good to actually evaluate things on their merits once in a while.

The "blind" ones are people like you! doing everything in good faith against people who aren't and fundamentally oppose you and your existence. Foolish!

doesn't that undermine the entire reason to have laws? if they are really just excuse to punish our enemies and reward our friends, why even bother with the pretense of a trial?

The reason we have laws is to protect the powerful from mobs right?

Laws protect interests of the ruling class. If interests are insufficient reason, then what is sufficient?

Its "valid" to do anything in this context weirdo, it isnt like a veridical thing!

"It is valid to love my mom, even when she makes me clean my room. This is the thing liberals will never understand."

Don't you have some "cathedral" you gotta go neckbeard on about somewhere else? Perhaps a divorce court hearing?

Wow you got my demographics and political opinions wrong entirely! We almost certainly vote for the same people. I'm just so sick of people in our tribe who REFUSE to ever name their enemies. We're doing everything in good faith against people who hate us and want us to die. It's silly, and standing on some principles while we continually lose over and over is sad to watch

> not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.

I think the point is that they don't like Sony music because they are so often on the wrong side, this time included.

Presumably the parent’s objection to ISPs and copyright cartels is precisely that they are so frequently (and to such a large degree) unjust. FWIW, I don’t think the parent’s objection was subtle about that point, I’m frankly not sure how it was overlooked.

Frankly, I don't see how you can't parse that their point, as written, is "I'm on the side of bad guy A because bad guy B is worse than bad guy A" which is completely orthogonal to "A is in the right and B is in the wrong".

I said "allow it". It was mainly about my feelings. I can feel what I want. It also just so happens that Cox was in the right and Sony Music was in the wrong.

If you look at the whole scenario, this will mean that Cox won't pass $1 billion dollars of punitive fines off to their customers, because, after all, the customers generate the money.

In reality, this would have made their innocent customers pay for the crimes of their guilty customers and made both Sony, and in the long run, Cox richer, because once paying an extra $5/month becomes normalized, then there's no way they're going to go back down in price just because the fine is paid off, any more than the government will ever stop charging tolls on a toll bridge that was paid for by tolls no matter how many times the cost of the toll bridge is paid off.

Because I'm a native English speaker and "worse" is definitely not orthogonal to "in the wrong".

> ... isn't Ukraine also begging for the multi-million dollar weapons? Are Patriots ...

Yeah they want Patriots but they want them for taking out relatively expensive Russian ballistic missiles. If those ballistics/hypersonics start costing $100k, Patriots will not be a viable defense against this.

There A LOT of esotericists/occultists writing research like this about AI today. It is heavily woo.

They answered your question with a pretty specific uptime target. Calling it a dodge and then moving the goalposts with a new question as your follow up doesn’t speak to you acting in good faith.

tbh they really didn't, tinygrad's was clearly a joke response. they were not providing a real uptime target.

May be more complex but it's less audacious.

The water systems for LA and San Francisco are really quite audacious even if they have less technical complexity than floating rail.

I've built ML systems way more complex than any of these but it's still way less ambitious and audacious.

If yours was instant, why would your AHT decline? Shouldn’t you be way faster? On many questions you would have saved over 3mins on network calls alone.

I believe they are saying their AHT went down (calls take less time) which made other people with longer handle times look bad.

The AHT value indeed went down 3 minutes below the average, which is generally a good thing so long as you are doing everything well still. All outliers get checked and mine was the lowest. I was honest about the tool, including that it was offline. Their supposed policy was no personal tools and as it was during "probation" (first 90 days in Ontario), they could fire without cause, and did, immediately.

A good business would have promoted you to the dev team so they could reduce that metric for everyone.

The aerial photo in the article makes the whole thing a little funny to me.

If you're going to quibble about OP's implied definition of "unchecked economic growth", then you should at least provide a better one that isn't just "economic growth".

The "unchecked" in unchecked economic growth just refers to the fact that no one is applying the brakes to this growth, i.e. it's being allowed to continue uninterrupted. This is only a problem when you understand the downsides of continuing with business as usual (mainly linked to the damage to the natural world).

growth especially in the EU pretty much decoupled from environmental load

That's not true. I'm sure you're referring to outsourcing manufacturing to other countries, but that's not enough to decouple from environmental load. For example, growth in tourism is not decoupled from environmental load.

it's not 100%, but the strong correlation of economic activity with energy used (and that with CO2 emitted) is definitely getting less and less relevant.

and the EU CBAM (carbon border adjustment mechanism) is finally in force since start of 2026 for 6 sectors, and all sectors by 2030 (and by 2034 there should be no sectoral free quotas)

"Many countries have decoupled economic growth from CO₂ emissions, even if we take offshored production into account" from 2021 https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling

and environmental load is not just CO2, but this is the main factor (because energy abundance is a prerequisite for a sustainable - actually green - economy)

I have no idea if Meta is driving these, but the only way it would make sense for them to do it is if they saw age-verification as inevitable and would prefer to pass on the costs/liability of implementation to the app store providers. If they didn't see them as inevitable, then it makes no sense for them to be pushing for these as they are fundamentally against their own growth.

> As with the insane "encryption is a weapon and cant be exported" policy of the 80s, this will surely force innovation to migrate outside the US.

Not advocating for this policy but if a critical argument against it is that policymakers can expect an analogous amount of computer innovation migrating out of the US as it saw in the 80s, then I think policymakers won't care remotely. Quite literally I think the lower bound for the proportion of global computer innovation happening in the US is 70%.