cakealert

5 ms·

1.
by cakealert 4mo ago
Perhaps refer to the root of this convo branch: > Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely? You changed the subject. Wealth wasn't it.
2.
by cakealert 4mo ago
That requires explanation of a mechanism that would generate wealth for yourself (and your selected friends) and no one else. Capturing 100% of the value is all but impossible. Also you didn't address what he said, possibly because it&
3.
by cakealert 4mo ago
Liquidity is an emergent property. It doesn't change the fact that when you buy something the money moved.
4.
by cakealert 4mo ago
The share is under your control, the money isn't. Being able to convert it at will doesn't change that. Also how much if anything it's worth when you go to convert it isn't under your control either.
5.
by cakealert 4mo ago
> If you invest in $AMZN, much less so. But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has
6.
by cakealert 4mo ago
> move money around each other's pockets rather than investing in something wealth creating So your claim is that wealthy people aren't interested in generating more wealth for themselves? What exactly is it you are claiming? S
7.
by cakealert 4mo ago
When you invest money it disappears from your control and you get a piece of paper that says you own shares in an entity.
8.
by cakealert 4mo ago
> The elites always promise us trickle down economics, maybe this time it will happen. Are you under the impression that the wealthy keep their money in a savings account? They have more money than they can spend so they invest it, what
9.
by cakealert 4mo ago
Instead of a mouth tape get one of those moldable plastic mouth guard things from amazon. And mold the hole shut.
10.
by cakealert 4mo ago
> No, based on cURL's history, it really seems like they would love to have found a really novel bug. You just confirmed that you didn't read the article. "Eventually, I was instead offered that someone else, who has acces
11.
by cakealert 4mo ago
The purpose of IQ tests is to derive a value that would predict other values. The inverse is also true. Given a multitude of such values it would even be possible to get back to a precise IQ value. IQ tests are just factor analysis artifact
12.
by cakealert 4mo ago
Why the focus on Lynn? Focusing on his critics is more illuminating and damaging to your presumed position: Systematic review by Wicherts et al: "In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African testtakers, only the use of
13.
by cakealert 7mo ago
The other such labeled companies have contracts too.
14.
by cakealert 7mo ago
> Because it's not a military asset? It's a privately-owned asset. Are you under the impression that the military is submitting Anthropic API calls? Whatever model the military is using is as much of an asset as the F35 they pu
15.
by cakealert 8mo ago
This is fairly naive, Elon isn't the only investor in SpaceX. My guess is "that they did the math" and had an engineering study which convinced them that getting AI datacenters into space will make sense. It's also not h
16.
by cakealert 8mo ago
Yes that guy is extremely weird, he should delegate operations and community management to someone who isn't weird and stick to development.
17.
by cakealert 8mo ago
The same way that having motorized farming equipment was a race to the bottom for farmers? Perhaps. Turned out to be a good outcome for most involved. Just like farmers who couldn't cope with the additional leverage their equipment pro
18.
by cakealert 8mo ago
This wasn't even true 10 years ago...
19.
by cakealert 9mo ago
The idea that a group of people would spend so much of their time trying to get linux to work on Apple hardware through reverse engineering always seemed absolutely crazy to me. I would never consider buying Apple hardware precisely because
20.
by cakealert 9mo ago
A sufficiently seeded torrent is a high latency static CDN. You just need a client that can make use of it. I'm not sure if anyone will be interested in making one however, you can already get a patched Spotify APK from the usual mobil
21.
by cakealert 9mo ago
When they say "worse" they do mean the AI will get better which will be worse because they are ideologically opposed to AI.
22.
by cakealert 9mo ago
when you combine a residential proxy with a tool like curl-impersonate (there are libraries in Go for this type of fingerprint spoofing now) they dont even show up as scrapers anymore, just users. especially when they adjust timings to mimi
23.
by cakealert 9mo ago
> Having beliefs, principles or values is not lying to oneself. The lie is that you adopted "beliefs, principles or values" which cannot ever serve your interests, you have subsumed yourself into something that cannot ever reci
24.
by cakealert 9mo ago
> I prefer my positions strong and based on reality, not based on lies (to myself included). Then you would be the exception, not the rule. And if you find yourself attached to any ideology, then you are also wrong about yourself. Subscr
25.
by cakealert 9mo ago
Gemini 2.5 was a full broadside on OpenAI's ship. After Gemini 3.0 the OpenAI damage control crews all drowned. Not only is it vastly better, it's also free. I find this particular benchmark to be in agreement with my experiences:
26.
by cakealert 9mo ago
The answer to that is simple: They hate AI and the environment angle is just an excuse, much like their concern over AI art. Human psychology is such that many of these people actually believe the excuse too. It helps when you put yourself
27.
by cakealert 9mo ago
The real question is if AI replaces labor, what will keep democracy in place? People who advocate for things like UBI don't seem to realize that when voters don't have a share in the productivity of their nation, they become 100%
28.
by cakealert 9mo ago
The US could just adopt a law which automatically seizes assets from the EU to cover any such fines. Demonstrate where true power lies. Define this type of action as "bureaucratic piracy". Any rule which preferentially targets US
29.
by cakealert 11mo ago
This is almost certainly just for show (as in, they would have no reliance on it and not expect it to ever be triggered). They will have agents both known and unknown operating at those companies. A company cannot as a policy set out to vio
30.
by cakealert 11mo ago
There has never been a point where tipping point public demand for regulation did not lead to regulation (if it was for example unconstitutional to regulate). Which makes the assertion that regulation is the solution unprovable. If the FDA

More ›