That looks expensive. Can we just replace it with Jack Ives matter plaza? I thing Jack Ives would appreciate it and it'd cost only a fraction as much.
I find it a useful tool, but people have already started to point out that dull, soulless, lifeless writing comes out of it. Newer versions of the LLMs don't improve on this, it just gives them a more comprehensive data set.
Ultimately, one of the core problems with AI in general is it's epistemologically conservative. It doesn't know anything it wasn't told, and then what it does is mutate and remix that data into something that has the appearance of something new but is essentially just what has come before. As we rely more on it as a tool, it's a limitation we need to keep in mind because people on the cutting edge of thought or research may find their AIs telling them that what hasn't been discovered or created doesn't exist just because it hasn't yet.
Ultimately, one of the core problems with AI in general is it's epistemologically conservative. It doesn't know anything it wasn't told, and then what it does is mutate and remix that data into something that has the appearance of something new but is essentially just what has come before. As we rely more on it as a tool, it's a limitation we need to keep in mind because people on the cutting edge of thought or research may find their AIs telling them that what hasn't been discovered or created doesn't exist just because it hasn't yet.
Sadly, we are.
All it takes is a little anti-american fake nationalism and all sins are forgiven. Especially with the boomers.
That being said, I still think this is like the fake polling bump Kamala got. Prior to Trudeau announcing his resignation, the Liberals were in #3, and we were on track for #2 to be a regional party that only exists in one province. It's still entirely possible we see a massive victory for the conservatives, and Poilievre is still on track to a majority in the latest polls regardless, the only question at the moment is how big it'll be and who'll be in #2.
There's also Canadian precedent for this. Kim Campbell was a conservative who became prime minister in a situation like this, and the polls said the conservatives could win, and the result was 15 years of Liberal dominance (and that wasn't so bad back then, it was a different party than it is today)
All it takes is a little anti-american fake nationalism and all sins are forgiven. Especially with the boomers.
That being said, I still think this is like the fake polling bump Kamala got. Prior to Trudeau announcing his resignation, the Liberals were in #3, and we were on track for #2 to be a regional party that only exists in one province. It's still entirely possible we see a massive victory for the conservatives, and Poilievre is still on track to a majority in the latest polls regardless, the only question at the moment is how big it'll be and who'll be in #2.
There's also Canadian precedent for this. Kim Campbell was a conservative who became prime minister in a situation like this, and the polls said the conservatives could win, and the result was 15 years of Liberal dominance (and that wasn't so bad back then, it was a different party than it is today)
Seeing that, it might be time to start readying my dry powder.... but it doesn't feel ready yet.
It actually pisses me off seeing a bunch of people who were like "#cancelcanadaday" pretending they're patriotic. STFU you don't give a shit about any given country, you're a bunch of postnationalists.
It's like -- Sit down, shut up, and eat your postnational gruel. This is the gruel you cooked, eat every drop.
It's like -- Sit down, shut up, and eat your postnational gruel. This is the gruel you cooked, eat every drop.
Honestly, forcing payment of already completed work seems reasonable, though there's a good question of what the hell is being done with 2 billion dollars.
So Jagmeet Singh says we shouldn't have "tax cuts for the rich" for companies that are affected by tariffs.
Tariffs though, they're a tax exclusively on the rich -- almost nobody other than companies directly imports stuff from other countries, we buy stuff in stores.
So the obvious counter is "Yeah, but the companies paying tariffs just pass the cost on to the customer"
Yeah, they do that with taxes, don't they? Hmm.
Tariffs though, they're a tax exclusively on the rich -- almost nobody other than companies directly imports stuff from other countries, we buy stuff in stores.
So the obvious counter is "Yeah, but the companies paying tariffs just pass the cost on to the customer"
Yeah, they do that with taxes, don't they? Hmm.
Honestly, there should be a giant crash!
Who wants to tell me that the economy is better than it was in 2019? Who wants to tell me that the economy is three times better than it was in 2019? Because the spy is up 300% compared to 2019, what the hell?
These companies aren't better off than they were 5 years ago, back then they were in what was being called the longest economic recovery on record, during a period of at least reportedly low inflation that had lasted a decade. And yet the spy is 300% of what it was.
Who wants to tell me that the economy is better than it was in 2019? Who wants to tell me that the economy is three times better than it was in 2019? Because the spy is up 300% compared to 2019, what the hell?
These companies aren't better off than they were 5 years ago, back then they were in what was being called the longest economic recovery on record, during a period of at least reportedly low inflation that had lasted a decade. And yet the spy is 300% of what it was.
Given realities about borders, crossing borders should be the thing you're most concerned about at all times ever, because at borders all bets are our the window and it doesn't matter who's in charge at the time.
It's been the case for at least 20 years that constitutional rights simply don't exist when you are crossing a border in the US. Obviously that's the case for Canada too since it's the same border.
It's been the case for at least 20 years that constitutional rights simply don't exist when you are crossing a border in the US. Obviously that's the case for Canada too since it's the same border.
I mean, the way that the federal government was found to be directly manipulating all social media is a pretty hard attack on civil liberties.
Of course, they don't consider those to be civil liberties anymore, who needs to be able to speak freely?
Of course, they don't consider those to be civil liberties anymore, who needs to be able to speak freely?
It should be breaking, it's dysfunctional.
Should be way further down considering the massive problems of the past 6 years aren't priced in at all.
Should be way further down considering the massive problems of the past 6 years aren't priced in at all.
In reality, it's because of the different narratives. For men, the prevailing narrative is heroic -- a loser starts at the bottom and build themselves up through sacrifice, hard work, ingenuity, and virtue. The victory is reaching the top of the dominance hierarchy through meritorious behavior. By contrast, women typically don't need to reach the top of the dominance hierarchy, and part of the feminine myth is that there is no dominance hierarchy and if there is one then it needs to be flattened, but with them at the top because they're so harming and beautiful.
If we look at older myths about women, we see similar archetypes: in Cinderella, the least loved daughter is so beautiful and so charming that the prince falls for her. In the frog prince, a destitute woman, and through very little action of her own (she kisses a frog), becomes her bride. In sleeping beauty, the main character's role is to sleep and be beautiful. These are completely different stories than men. The men must focus on becoming better to become worthy of success. The women must do what is necessary to be selected for success.
It's actually quite interesting; One of the failures of modern movies with female protagonists is that they don't actually change this -- usually the female lead is effortlessly perfect and wonderful, and her only struggle is successfully being selected as great. This is particularly troublesome when the stories take up the trappings of male stories, and people who watch the movies and expect to see struggle and growth instead see someone being selected.
If we look at older myths about women, we see similar archetypes: in Cinderella, the least loved daughter is so beautiful and so charming that the prince falls for her. In the frog prince, a destitute woman, and through very little action of her own (she kisses a frog), becomes her bride. In sleeping beauty, the main character's role is to sleep and be beautiful. These are completely different stories than men. The men must focus on becoming better to become worthy of success. The women must do what is necessary to be selected for success.
It's actually quite interesting; One of the failures of modern movies with female protagonists is that they don't actually change this -- usually the female lead is effortlessly perfect and wonderful, and her only struggle is successfully being selected as great. This is particularly troublesome when the stories take up the trappings of male stories, and people who watch the movies and expect to see struggle and growth instead see someone being selected.
One of the core things I've been working on lately is a framework that accepts that multiple contradictory things are true at almost all times, and how to navigate that fact.
It's a fact that empathy is a core human value, it's also a fact that you have to discriminate based on some sort of criteria because the universe has limited time and energy. You can't ignore either, and you can't collapse them into synthesis either, they're just two things that remain true. Of course there's more than 2 things that are true at once too, so you have to navigate all those things that are true. One of the strengths and weaknesses of various modernist frameworks is that they just pretend only one grand narrative is true, and it simplifies the world so it's easier to make decisions and unify behind those decisions, but will always result in terrible decisions because the world isn't simple.
It's a core theme on my new book, in fact.
It's a fact that empathy is a core human value, it's also a fact that you have to discriminate based on some sort of criteria because the universe has limited time and energy. You can't ignore either, and you can't collapse them into synthesis either, they're just two things that remain true. Of course there's more than 2 things that are true at once too, so you have to navigate all those things that are true. One of the strengths and weaknesses of various modernist frameworks is that they just pretend only one grand narrative is true, and it simplifies the world so it's easier to make decisions and unify behind those decisions, but will always result in terrible decisions because the world isn't simple.
It's a core theme on my new book, in fact.
Odd thing being that tariffs are typically import taxes, not export taxes.
so how exactly are you going to put an import tax on an export?
so how exactly are you going to put an import tax on an export?
I'm just saying, if you want to nuke Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
And if a few fly off and hit NYC and LA by accident, who's to know what happens in the fog of war?
And if a few fly off and hit NYC and LA by accident, who's to know what happens in the fog of war?
I find his style annoying and crass, but he's also the only person in tech reporting on certain things, so you take good information from where you get it.