Maybe it’s semantics, but generally with fund allocation when you’re deploying more than 1% of your AUM towards a single thesis that’s a significant bet.
Nobody bought a Tesla in the last 5 years because “I want fewer highway fatalities”, they often bought it because they thought the overhyped self driving features would let them chill out on their commute.
People want self driving cars so bad because driving everywhere sucks (and sitting on public transit sucks too). Routine travel is mundane and boring.
Who decided that “good art makes you ask questions” or “art is about starting a conversation”? Sounds like an excuse for passing off garbage.
“The Course Of Empire” is a beautiful piece of art for many reasons: it’s clearly masterful, it represents complex ideas simply, it conveys emotions we lack words to convey, it beautifully displays the human experience, and so on. It’s art even if you didn’t have a human to experience it - it’s self evident.
Taping a banana to a wall isn’t art. A silent song isn’t art. These are just childish, amateurish displays only enjoyed by a nihilistic culture devoid of meaning. If what you make only counts as art because it “starts a conversation” about how stupid and garbage and insulting it is, then it’s not art at all.
Because even customers don’t always know what they want. A lot of customers want peace of mind when they’re buying a product, and you can’t always build up that trust in a single call, so a white lie that gets them as a customers as long as you can fully deliver on that promise seems optimal for both parties.
Telling a customer “we don’t have that yet” knowing full well they just care if you have it, and knowing full well you can deliver it as promised, just creates unnecessary doubt that could lead to a worse situation for everyone. One where a customer passes on you because they don’t know you well enough to trust you can deliver, and you don’t get the sale because you didn’t happen to create some very simple feature before a customer demanded it. That’s a lose-lose.
This complaint just reeks of “I’ve never worked in a company or role that didn’t already have all the uncertainty figured out”. Building features nobody wants as insurance in case somebody finally asks for it is a waste of human talent.
Once you get accepted they do further diligence (that can take several weeks if you’re missing things or have been sloppy) to get it all together before they give you the money and let you do demo day.
Don’t we all known someone who is very widely read, but makes the occasional error or mistake? Gets confused about something, or is asked about a discipline they don’t understand or haven’t researched very deeply? Maybe they misremember a date here or there, but are otherwise fairly intelligent? Maybe they work a data entry job making a middle class salary.
This is basically where ChatGPT is at. It’s a very widely read person with an excellent memory and quick mind. It’s probably smarter than the average human (certainly in breadth, often in depth), not to mention a comparison of it to the average human globally.
ChatGPT is smarter than the average human already. It doesn’t need agency or a soul to do so. We already have AGI, we just keep moving the goal posts.
I think things like this have been tried (like shipping container homes). Problem isn’t lack of capital for a solution like this, it’s lack of demand and zoning issues.
Houses made out of dirt or cargo containers don’t appreciate all that well, so while you have a shelter over your head, you’re still just throwing money away as if you’re renting (except you also have a mortgage with a big down payment and interest).
Maybe you could address homelessness with enough of these and made cheaply enough, but it won’t affect the housing crisis so much, because people want affordable but appreciating homes. Like the desire to buy cheap stocks that go up a lot, it’s easier said than done.
What is incredibly well established is that g is incredibly predictive for many life outcomes from income to educational attainment to drug addiction. This is what IQ test measures.
The only thing disputed is whether g is the same thing as “intelligence”, and the only dispute there is from softer science fields because “intelligence” is a word without a precise definition and a lot of feelings and opinions wrapped up in it.
Nah it’s definitely gotten worse in my experience. I played with an early access version late last year/early this year and there’s been a strong correlation between how hard they restrict it and how good it is.
Queries it used to blow away it now struggles with.
The best individual action you can do is agitate for political and corporate change. Almost all the blame is on corporations and government bodies. The emissions of individuals pales in comparison.
You could say the same about Elon Musk or Nokola Tesla or many others. Just sounds like pure survivorship bias to me. "This crazy innovator died so clearly future innovators should listen to the experts!".
Of course inflation is "just" businesses increasing their prices, how else would prices increase - they are decided by humans after all. It's STILL the fault of loose monetary policy. Do you understand that?
Many people mention corporate profits drive inflation like that's the end of the conversation. It's the equivalent of saying your house got flooded because the door broke open (allowing the raging hurricane outside to get in). It's pointing at a barely relevant proximal cause to ignore the real issue (the raging hurricane).
The economy is a system of individual actors. Everyone is constantly trying to raise their price (employees and employers included). When you do the equivalent of doubling the money supply in under a year, combined with covid supply chain issues, you create an environment where actors in the economy are able to dramatically increase their prices - often out of necessity because their competitors and suppliers are doing the same. The consequence is inflation. This happens if and only if you dump massive amounts of money into the economy above and beyond what can be absorbed by the rate of production.
In a sense, both are technically true: inflation is because Biden among other world leaders flooded the economy with money, and the economy aka the system of individual actors reacted to this and found they were able to raise prices because the economy could sustain that. The difference is that one of these is a massive unforced error with easily foreseen consequences that caused significant suffering, and the other is human nature (wrapped up in a prisoner's dilemma).
The blame is still rightfully entirely on people like Biden who greenlit this objectively terrible policy.
It isn't all or nothing. Imagine the government we could have if we all paid 90% in taxes - except I don't want that. I don't even want the kind of government that needs a budget of 40% of my income.
If you live in a rural area, the government needs a budget to repair infra and run a few programs, it doesn't need the budget of NYC. Likewise, a government that lacks a sales tax mechanism doesn't "need to get the money elsewhere", it can simply go without and adjust it's services accordingly.
It’s never enough. This guy is throwing millions towards others and helping their lives, but because he’s not suffering enough to do it, or doing it out of your defined pure intentions, it’s hardly good at all? It’s clear you care more about the sacrificial theater of giving than you do about actual impact.
What good have you done for anyone but yourself in the last month? Do you even fulfill your own standards? Is any charity less than implementing your preferred political policies useless? It’s hard to even describe how childish and selfish your take is.
Just anecdotal but none of their recent work is really that inspiring or extraordinary, especially compared to alternatives. It's hard to articulate it but its like they've lost their touch and are now pumping out corporate-approved / critic-approved slop instead of their previous "more authentic" work.
It’s probably about as dangerous to minors as sitting the minor in a room while 2 consenting adults have sex, or taking that minor to a strip club. Does the screen itself prevent trauma? Would you be ok with having your child exposed to either of these?
What about a gentle and loving uncle molesting a child in a way not much different from playful wrestling? Wrestling is fine, but we all recognize the molestation is incredibly harmful, even in this situation (because the harm isn’t the violence of it, it’s the actual sex itself).
This is just common sense. Of course sexualizing (sexually activating) children (which porn does) at a young age is harmful. It’s probably very harmful to adults too in large doses like porn addiction.