Compensation for the risks taken and opportunity cost lost by doing this instead of something else.
Are you serious? I suggest you re-evaluate your priors because you're spouting things that demonstrate a severe lack of consideration for 1st, 2nd and 3rd order effects.
Plenty of brilliant work is achieved on this earth without bribing c suite with yacht and private jet money. Funny too how it is never really the engineering team tasked with actually doing the thing that gets top compensation at an org. Always the finance bros who have shoehorned themselves in between this team and capital.
C suite compensation is completely bonkers compared to what they actually do. That is all waste, whether paid out in base, equity, bonus, or whatever other benefit.
So you're worried that the shareholders are paying their employees too much?
Come on now. You're just upset and lashing out without considering things.
Touch grass man. Figure out what you actually want, and support policies that actually achieve it, instead of just going off a knee jerk reaction to people you dislike.
> This isn't a wealth inequality issue, it's a "you're overspending" issue.
Just so that I understand your position, you think the reason a cashier at McDonald struggles is because he is overspending on his rent? and not due to wealth inequality which causes low wages ?
I can assure you, in most places you will not be fined or put in prison for not having a home. In most places the local council, or charities will help provide you shelter even if only on a temporary basis.
Many people go through a “homeless” period of not having a permanent address. Couch surfing. Motels etc.
It’s not fun. It’s very stressful. Our systems have a positive feedback loop against financial instability.
However there is another category of homeless which is a person pushing a shopping cart on the side of the road. And this is an exteme level of dysfunction and despair.
I saw a tweet that summarized this issue as “you’re as likely to become a CEO or NBA player as you are to become homeless.” Meaning that it’s a track of genetics and behavior resulting in dysfunction several standard deviations away from normal.
If you took an average person and then forced them to stop paying rent or anything more expensive than their current rent (so no motels)—the scenario being discussed here—which category of homeless would they likely end up in?
What are you talking about? What is “rent”? You can rent an individual room. You can rent a double-wide trailer. You can move to Kentucky. You can work 40 hours (guaranteed 40-50k year).
> stop responding to all incentives and deliberately go against the grain of every system and form of aid.
Saves money by not renting? This sounds like an Upper class 20 year old activity. Are they not renting a trailer so they can put $200/month in Tesla?
The level of discipline and focus to be that kind of super saver doesn’t sound like the origin story of a guy with a shopping cart.
Another aspect that gives ms pause is living in ann unmaintained apartment where you don’t have insurance etc is miserable. And that’s the reality of being poor. I’m not sure why we need to pretend we can all become homeless when the actual danger is already real and bleak.
I also haven't been a millionaire, but that doesn't mean i don't know how to earn money.
Sorry, your appeals to emotion aren't effective, and your arguments do not agree with reality.
There is no able bodied person in the US who is unable to save and invest enough of their income to have a decent life. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or ignorant about reality.
Thank you for ignoring the request and not providing the simple link i requested.
Also, from your own link:
>Is It Illegal to Be Homeless
>No US law makes the status of being homeless a crime. You cannot face arrest simply for not having a permanent address or for being unable to afford rent.
not with this engine. Kimi is a very different model. You can try to check HN later, I believe someone will build engine for this model for edge devices
"Colonialism" is a weird Western guilt fetish that some others successfully milk.
After 10 generations, the people are every bit as local as the previous population was. 300 years is such an abyss of time that most of us would fail to name a single of our ancestors by name.
Kladsko was a Czech city from approx. 1000 to 1742. The old town still looks a bit like very small Prague [0]. Was lost in a war (to the Prussians no less), it is gone, not our anymore. Tough luck. Others live there now, it is theirs.
> "Colonialism" is a weird Western guilt fetish that some others successfully milk
Colonialism is the historical basis of almost all of global society today. It's not at all weird to be concerned with it when it still drives so much of the relative power dynamics between states and between people(s) today.
The example you're giving of Czechia and Prussia simply isn't an example of a colonial action.
That requires buying into the very concept that "colonialism" is a specific sin different (and worse) from ye olde "I am stronger than you and will occupy your territory and take your wealth". I have even met people who claim that Russian expansion into Siberia was not colonialism, because it wasn't done using ships.
I don't really buy it. It feels to me as unnatural as if somebody decided that theft of, say, a smartphone, was a separate and much graver offence than theft of anything else.
It only makes sense to me if there is an underlying ideology, or maybe very practical demands for reparations which shouldn't be hindered by other demands for reparations, and thus the others need to be downgraded pre-emptively.
It may also come handy for distraction from domestic governance failures, such as bad security situation, rolling blackouts, subpar maintenance of infrastructure and endemic corruption. "Hey, don't look into this, you know how bad the colonialists were?"
(Fairly similar to the way the contemporary Russian propaganda tries to pin the failure of their current war of aggression on anyone and anything but their own stupid decision to go all in.)
> That requires buying into the very concept that "colonialism" is a specific sin different (and worse) from ye olde "I am stronger than you and will occupy your territory and take your wealth".
It does, yes, and completely reasonably so. That's why it has a different name.
> .. as if somebody decided that theft of, say, a smartphone, was a separate and much graver offence...
Yes, it is like that indeed and I'm sure you'll recognise the difference between intellectual property theft and the theft of a car, or the difference between stealing food from a supermarket and stealing food from a beggar.
> I don't really buy it
> It only makes sense to me if there is an underlying ideology
Ok? Maybe read some more about it. Right now it feels like you're the one pushing an ideology without really making an argument for it.
> It may also come handy for distraction from domestic governance failures
Yes, it might. Governments have a host of ways to distract the public from issues. That doesn't change the reality of the history of, or contemporary effects of, colonialism.
> ... similar to the way the contemporary Russian propaganda ...
I have read quite a lot about it and my conclusion is what I wrote above. A mostly ideological distinction without real difference - even less difference than your examples of theft (intellectual property aside - that is not theft by any definition, but infringement).
People have always tried to conquer other territories, make use of them and settle them. To make an artificial slice out of this continuous and omnipresent phenomenon and call it by another name is incoherent, but then ideologies are mostly incoherent, and colonialism as a very specific sin was a very good and efficient argument in Cold War propaganda and its struggle for influence in the Third World.
Soviets excelled in propaganda, and many of their ideas (like AIDS being an artificial disease, unilateral nuclear disarmament, or the fake contrast between colonialism and membership in the Socialist Bloc) survived the fall of the country.
That said, a very similar line was already pushed by the Japanese in order to paint their own brutal empire as some kind of Pan-Asian utopia. But their trace in global discourse is negligible to the Soviet one, which was much more sophisticated and long-lasting.
I'm not sure what you mean by "when boats" exactly it why you used that phrasing, but it seems like an attempt at pre-emptively mocking a strawman, framing it as childish. That's not very nice rhetoric, is it?
These terms are well defined and it would serve you well to simply consult a dictionary.
But in short colonialism implies the use of colonies (surprise surprise) meaning the use of settlers to control or displace populations. There from comes the name
It also differs from other forms of expansionism in a few important ways.
- The power class structure is built on trade imbalances which move resources from the colonised land to the metropole without building up local economies.
- There's no absorption, the territories tend to remain separate and the colonised people can't become citizens or equals with those colonising them.
- And it's understood when speaking about things like the "colonial era" or "historical colonialism" that there was a deal of racial justification and stratification along racial lines.
You'll quickly be able to compare this list to whatever historical event you like.
You can mock the grammar of "only colonialism when boats", but AFAIK when the Soviet Union accused some Western power of engaging in colonialism and got "well, you have your Central Asian dependencies" as an answer, they were quick to refine their definition of "colonialism" to include a "transmaritime" checkbox. So, yeah. FWIW there have been those who accused modern nation states of practicing "internal colonialism" in the sense that oftentimes all the money, support and political representation goes overwhelmingly to some select places while the rest of the country is treated as a convenient reservoir of cheap labor.
My definition of colonialism generally involves people being subjugated and being treated as less and involuntarily part of an empire. People in Gibraltar are British citizens with full rights by definition.
Land borders that one doesn't like doesn't equate to colonialism. It's just a land border that you don't like. The people of Gibraltar voted almost 100% to be British on more than one occasion. Trying to make them not British is the definition of colonialism
Would you hold that standard towards Angola in 1973?
The vast majority of its inhabitants were portuguese citizens with the exact same rights and duties as any other portuguese citizen in Lisbon. The majority of that territory (and certainly the parts with most of the population) was portuguese for 500+ years.
Each of these countries, enclaves, territories, settlements, borders have massive amounts of history that shape why they are the way they are, and attempting to say "this rule should apply equally to all of them" shows a huge misunderstanding of why they are unique.
If there is an acceptable margin of error for humans, we should be able to measure it for AI, and once AI is within those margins then it should be feasible to replace the human.
What causes problems is the rewriting in this case are only read while writing is the cache! However, I'm working to improve more and more and make some parts lighter!
I do not think this is true. Do you have any proof? I‘m aware only of German court refusing to apply urgent procedure to unblock his bank accounts. The sanctions were applied not that long ago for him to get decision by German courts or ECJ.
No, this is a valid point. Court cases are usually playing out slowly amd carefully. So, in order to prevent harm to the parties involved caused by that slowness, injunctions can be issued by the court that can provide reasonable relief from immediate damages from the dispute that can't be compensated for or reversed later. In Germany, getting relief through an injunction really is about proving that lasting damage is caused while the case drags on. The full merrits of the case are explicitly excluded from consideration.
Why would i want an inferior option just because it's made in the EU? I'm not an EU nationalist, i don't care if "EU Tech Companies" are a thing. If anything "EU Tech Sovereignty" is a net negative for me.
> If anything "EU Tech Sovereignty" is a net negative for me.
Is it? If you live in the EU, the fact that pretty much all companies completely depend on US tech to work means that the US can not only spy on them (if Airbus uses Microsoft Teams, then the US government can ask Microsoft to give them access to the data and use that to help Boeing win contracts for instance), but also put pressure on those companies by blocking their access to that tech (it has happened).
The "sovereignty" part here is a net positive for anyone living in the EU. Net negative for anyone living in the US of course, because being in a dominant position does favour the US.
The default stance should be that nothing you do is private on the internet. If we're talking spying then no service in any country will be secure unless fully encrypted with audits. Any country with an intelligence agency can force companies in their jurisdiction to give them access to data otherwise.
Not sure what you are trying to say, except that it confirms my point: if a company in say, Germany, uses Microsoft and Google services for all their communications, then the US (!) can just get access to all their data.
Now if that company was using services based in Germany, then only Germany could access that data, which is obviously much less of a sovereignty problem (Germany interfering with Germany's affair is just a normal government).
Sure for a German company in Germany that's perfectly reasonable, but we're not talking about each country in Europe having their own copy of AWS/Stripe/Search.
In reality all the data will be in France/Germany/Netherlands because that is where the infrastructure is. They also happen to be countries with world class intelligence agencies.
We need better services and protocols developed with privacy in mind from the beginning, no matter where it's hosted.
> but we're not talking about each country in Europe having their own copy of AWS/Stripe/Search.
We're not talking about having hyperscalers in each country, but I could totally imagine each country having infrastructure.
> In reality all the data will be in France/Germany/Netherlands
Having the choice between 3 European countries is already a lot better than giving all the data to the US. The US has been a lot more hostile to European countries than "the intersection of hostility from France/Germany/Netherlands".
> We need better services and protocols developed with privacy in mind from the beginning, no matter where it's hosted.
Sure, I agree with that. But one doesn't prevent the other. Typically it's not practical to run LLMs in a privacy-preserving manner, so it's a lot better (in terms of sovereignty) to run a server in a place you trust than in a hostile country.
> Having the choice between 3 European countries is already a lot better than giving all the data to the US. The US has been a lot more hostile to European countries than "the intersection of hostility from France/Germany/Netherlands".
History shows conflict seems to be inevitable. You can't assume all European nations will be friendly forever. I'm American, but my hope is that this knee-jerk reaction to just move everything possible to EU has more thought behind it. Improving upon what we currently have especially with respect to privacy so that everyone in the world may benefit rather than just clone American tech and calling it a day.
- IF you can choose to rely on one of [France, Germany, Netherland], then you would need to be in conflict with all three to be screwed.
- IF you can choose to rely on a service in your country, it's better for sovereignty.
Overall, it's all better for competition. The best would be competing services sharing an open core (or even everything).
> this knee-jerk reaction to just move everything possible to EU
The thought is that if you are in the EU, in terms of sovereignty you are better off giving your data to EU services. US companies give their data to US services, so of course it is much less of an issue there. And Americans are not the last to complain when US companies give their data to non-US companies...
I live in an EU country and care deeply for the right to erasure and our consumer rights. The EU legislature does some good things on that front. I "care" for EU tech companies as much as I can care for any company currently. I think technological sovereignty is and will be important moving forward, for our economic resilience, infrastructure stability, among other things.
BTW "EU nationalist" just sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Which is why we’re putting our entire digital identification infrastructure in the hands of Google and Apple. EU technological sovereignty is a kafkaesque affair, and that’s putting it mildly.
I concur, except about the "putting it mildly" part. The digital ID stuff feels kafkaesque, sure, but not more. It's good lobbying at play, and I'm sure we'll find a way moving forward.
Assuming that most Europeans would be loyal to the EU is like assuming that most US Americans are loyal to Donald Trump (or Biden). But in reality a big enough proportion of Europeans see the EU as a hostile foreign influencing force.
Or, to put it another way, do you think any Americans use Microsoft or Apple products out of patriotism or fear of being dependent on technology from other nations?
> But in reality a big enough proportion of Europeans see the EU as a hostile foreign influencing force.
Yeah, I have to doubt your perceived reality here. Can you name some of these "hostile foreign influences"?
The big competitor to Apple is Google, whereas the big competitor to Microsoft is Linux/FOSS IMHO. I'm sorry to be blunt, but in the current political climate I couldn't care less what any Americans are using and for whatever reason. EU citizens on the other hand sure got a few reasons during the last decade due to foreign American politics.
> Can you name some of these "hostile foreign influences"?
The name is the European Union. It is the foreign entity to Europeans. If you doubt that there is a big portion of Europeans who aren't pro-EU, then I guess you doubt that there are Americans who aren't pro-Trump?
Anyway, there were referendums in many countries on the subject of joining the EU, and you can look at those and see that not 100% of the population voted yes.
So it is a false assumption that Europeans would by default have any loyalty or goodwill towards the EU, although I'm sure that a big portion of them do. Especially in some countries.
Well, call me surprised! Which democratic election ever achieves a one-sided 100%?
Still, the majority of the EU population seems to in favor of the EU, whereas the majority of the US citizens are pro-Trump, or they were during the last election at least. So I don't really understand what you're arguing for here.
If the location of something is a part of what you use to decide what to use, then if it's in the EU which is your preferred location, it no longer is "an inferior option", it might end up your only option.
But clearly you don't care, so understandably that choice doesn't make sense for you, that's all fine and good. But still you have to understand other people/organizations than you might have different requirements? Or is that a very foreign concept?
>But having watched what social media has done to our society, the tsunami of bullshit collapsing critical thought, science and reason I just don’t think civilisation can survive this without controls.
None of this is new. Every single one of these things has been pointed out millennia ago.
You had already evaluated it and made your decision (against censorship) on this decades ago when you first came across it.
Changing your view now isn't a matter of new information coming to light. It's a matter of you disliking the obvious and inevitable consequences that you had been warned of going into it.
Perhaps it's time you stop changing your mind based on totalitarian propaganda and realize you don't know what you're doing, and stop supporting censorship.
#/media/Soubor:2014_Most_gotycki_i_kościół_MBR_w_Kłodzku.jpg){kind=link}
Compensation for the risks taken and opportunity cost lost by doing this instead of something else.
Are you serious? I suggest you re-evaluate your priors because you're spouting things that demonstrate a severe lack of consideration for 1st, 2nd and 3rd order effects.
reply