If there's a unit test and you can give the correct response, I think it absolutely should be refunded and more. Otherwise, the stage of proof would be too hard.
Stepping on my soapbox: Treat your mind, body, and present moment as if they're sacred. As if you could live a thousand lives and they would be sacred every time. All the other stuff, it's just this once.
Cleaning a mind of random grievances and addictions is good. Letting a body be weird, dance wrong, move in funny ways, sing poorly: this is good too.
The whole "purpose" thing is a side-effect. It can't be sought directly, I think.
I had similar feelings with art generation. The early midjourney was definitely impressionistic, and I just kind of like impressionism. It's cool how accurate these have become, but they also feel closer to uncanny or boring.
Yeah. It really does seem that Microsoft is giving up on... everything? Like Xbox is kinda out, Windows is not great, and their AI never comes up as meaningful.
I wouldn't personally work for them ever. I've only heard bad things about their codebase... and I know people like to complain, but it's usually comedy levels of bad.
Sure. I spent some time designing the architecture for a system like this last year, based largely on my experience dating a prolific social networker for many years.
Would love to chat about it. There's no PM, so you can find my email at https://sephreed.me by clicking "contact"
I'll join your team if you find something. Would love to work as a group, rather than lone contributors.
Currently I'm looking into Deno and Ladybird. The latter has been nice enough, though the onboarding is little more than "compile yourself, then search for an issue."
I'm currently discovering Helix because I'm creating an LSP. I had tried to do the work in Zed, but Zed requires compilation with each update. It's for the sake of sandboxing, but it slows everything down immensely.
> decentralized in the near future (it probably won't)
I may be optimistic on this one. But it feels like dead internet is encroaching everywhere. There aren't many centralized services I can think of that people actually like. Perhaps Steam, but most of them are hated by their users. Currently, I'm imagining that more and more of our digital interactions are going to go through AI helpers. Agents that will filter out ads, and likely also hold onto our information for us. At a certain point, centralized DBs just become an unnecessary middleman with privacy concerns. If I want photos of my friends, why not just have my assistant ask their assistant?
> how about this scenario: ....
It seems like all of this data could easily fit into a 10MB of text. This is the kind of thing an assistant would be likely to churn through without issue. It could also search for other interesting correlations while it's at it.
I often go with either SQLite or a JSON loaded to RAM and synced for really small stuff. But even SQLite is starting to seem like overkill. Honestly, I think most of my data will be able to fit into a single context window of an AI soon enough.
I'm trying to figure out if our predictions differ because of the confusion of language and definitions, or if it's because there's something you're seeing which I am not. But also, I do like winning debates if done fairly.
You seem to be human from your comment history. Are you being pedantic about your definition of databases, or do you legitimately think DB's are necessary for storing decentralized personal information? I'm not considering a filesystem a DB, for instance.
ofc at least some people are enough like cancer they should be at least be changed... there's a lot of people. But no, I don't think this alone would be a sole distinguishing feature in that regard. It would be more "cancer-like," but there should definitely be more nuance before it's decided that a person "is cancer" and eradication should only be a last resort after everything else had been tried.
Perhaps an allergic response then? The point being, units of the super-organism are causing the death of things they shouldn't be. Perhaps out of selfishness (like cancer), or perhaps out of a misplaced response (like allergies). But the super-organism has every reason to evolve them out.
I'm pretty sure that maximizing user engagement (as social media does) leads to communities with easily defined and large borders. The border between rich and poor might be easily defined, but it isn't so large as to have a constant flow of anecdotes. The borders between races or genders are much more "daily life."
And -- ultimately -- I don't think the rich are that different of humans either. I see the issue as system level, some flaw in design which makes inequalities and differences grow rather than taper out.
Personal conscience and conviction -- as overwhelmingly stupid as the vast majority of people are with or without it -- is at least extremely important for the minority of people who end up being front-runners for society.
But so too is society a super-organism, in which we are but cells. And cells which actively spread disease for their own sake are kind of independent to a flaw: cancerous one could say.
Maybe there's a better world in which context is a factor in whether or not a persons convictions are the most valuable thing in the room. Personally, I'd say if you're killing others for your beliefs, then your beliefs should be allowed the same treatment. Whereas if your beliefs are merely unpopular.. well, I wouldn't fix a car with a popularity contest, let alone a toaster or an entire fucking government.