The thing that annoys me the most is when I ask it to generate some code - actually no, most often than not I don't even ask it to generate code, but ask some vaguely related programming question - to which it replies with complete listing of code (didn't ask for it, but alas).
Then I fix the code and tell it all the mistakes it has. And then it does a 180 in tone, wherein - it starts talking as if I wrote the code in the first place with - "yeah, obviously that wouldn't work, so I fixed the issues in your code" and acts like a person trying to save face and present the bugs it fixed as if the buggy code was written by me all along.
Because the author can't help himself. Obviously. These guys always let their convictions screech out.
The opening statement makes it sound like it's only the wealthy "tech-bros" that are rubbed the wrong way by DEI.
(in my recollection of it, the wealthy techbros were the first ones on the uptake of the whole DEI swindle. It's just that it's not the direction the wind blows these days)
You are already living in this reality. And it has already been happening for quite a few years by now.
People that are especially vocal and badly hit by tarrifs at the moment, are the people who have already been doing just that.
This transition happened so quickly that most people haven't fully cought up to the implications to the full extent.
In my mind, China is already the center of gravity.
We've still got local US distributors though, regardless of everything being made in China. Like if you decide you need something tomorrow, you can go on Amazon and get most things pretty quick (despite overpaying 1.5-2x compared to Aliexpress). And there's a whole cottage industry of 3d printing shops selling canned solutions to people who don't want to hunt Aliexpress themselves.
It's been well over a decade since I was doing embedded design professionally, so my perspective is coming more from a hobby/3d printing/"maker" place. But it feels like one of the main results of these tariffs is that the bottom is going to drop out on Chinese and Chinese-adjacent sellers preloading so much stuff into US warehouses ahead of sale, and instead just shipping orders direct from China. Using a US warehouse means the seller has to front the money for the tariffs as well and takes a risk of them being lowered depending on Krasnov's whims. Whereas shipping direct from China, even if the seller is handling the tariffs (eg Aliexpress Choice), they've already got the cash in hand from a confirmed purchase.
I mean in their actual self-interest rather than, say, what they have been made to believe is in their self-interest.
> Deindustrialization and Nikefication in the past several decades isn't "rational" long-term behavior either.
Maybe, but I was responding to "They benefitted from it so hard they voted for the exact opposite with eyes wide open. Twice."
There's an implication here, and in a subsequent reply that people voting against their interests is "[t]he go to midwit rationalization for every electoral loss", that people exercised free will when they voted.
This is plainly incorrect, because free will quite clearly does not exist. No one has ever shown the kinds of violations in the laws of physics that would be required for free will to exist.
Since free will does not exist, there is simply no a priori reason to believe that people voted in their interests. People's voting decisions, like everything else they do, are out of their control. To the extent that they vote in a particular way that's good or bad for them, it's driven purely by luck and circumstances.
It is this a priori belief that people vote or act in their own interests that's the real "midwit rationalization".
> There's an implication here, that people exercised free will when they voted.
There's no such implication.
> This is plainly incorrect, because free will quite clearly does not exist.
> Since free will does not exist, there is simply no a priori reason to believe that people voted in their interests.
What are you even talking about.
People (and living beings in general) acting in their own self-interest - pretty much all the time - it is the most universal general principle of life if there ever was one. This doesn't require or involve free will.
How well a biorobot (no free will!) executes in pursuing his self-interests, is the selection critereon.
Now, the people make mistakes pursuing their self-interests, doesn't mean they aren't acting in their self-interest. Because they sure as hell are - all the frigging time! It's their whole firmware!
Deindustrialization / nikefication all the way through the value chain except the very, very top last step of the value add - hasn't been in their self-interest, it isn't in the interests of their nation either.
It's only in the self-interests of short-term thinking shareholders that min-max asset valuations with great costs to everyone else but themselves.
> People (and living beings in general) acting in their own self-interest - pretty much all the time - it is the most universal general principle of life if there ever was one.
Base evolutionary instincts to survive don't translate to humans living in complex modern societies acting in their self-interest.
>Base evolutionary instincts to survive don't translate to humans living in complex modern societies acting in their self-interest.
What are you talking about?
Base evolutionary pressures and instincts have translated in exactly that.
Complex modern societies, and emergent behaviors and strategies arise from agents acting in their own self-interest (organizing in groups or otherwise to further their goals).
The idea that not only people don't act in their self-interest, but you - in fact - know better what's in their best interest is truly some mid-tier thinking. Or that you have some unique ability to know what's in their best self-interest, but they... for some reason... don't.
Now it doesn't mean that acting in self-interest doesn't sometimes result in ruin, because it surely can!
That however doesn't mean that all these choices weren't made with self-interest in mind, front and center, despite people claiming otherwise.
The groups and societies that enact the winning, most sensible strategy, economic and industrial policy will win out.
Those individually or in groups that don't, will go to shitter and or be selected out. It's that simple.
I think people with expertise and training do generally know what's in people's interest more than untrained people themselves, yes. I also think that the fact that this isn't blindingly obvious to most folks is at the heart of a lot of the rot in modern society.
> I think people with expertise and training do generally know what's in people's interest more than untrained people themselves
For petes sake dude, people act in their own self-interests.
That includes so called "people with expertise and training", or more correctly put - credentialed people.
They worked towards getting these credentials (fancy law or economics degree at a fancy university) - not because they were interested in acting in interests of the "untrained people". They just wanted a cushy, high status, well paid job.
What do you think governments are ran by - generally speaking? People without "expertise"(cough, cough) and "training"?
No, they are ran by people with "expertise and training" (ie. credentialed)!
The problem is that they mainly act in their self-interests (and interests of their social group) first and foremost, and not for their expertise or lack-thereof. And the people that vie for positions of power and status act in their self-interests and interests of their social clique squared or cubed. Everything else is an afterthought.
>I also think that the fact that this isn't blindingly obvious to most folks is at the heart of a lot of the rot in modern society.
> Experience and training makes you better at things. What can I say.
The orange has a degree in economics by the way (from a ivy league uni too). So you could say he has both the credentials, the experience and the training. You could even... dare I say... call him an expert.
Or you could just accept the obvious - any barely functioning middling brain can get credentials and become an "expert". And that they do. It is neither a competency nor an intellect filter.
Neither is there personal responsibility or real liability if they are wrong about their economic and other policies that lead to ruin (endless list of examples of this in past). Seen any heads on the pike lately? Yeah, me neither.
Nor are there incentives in place to think what's in other "common" peoples best interests. So why would they?
There's a long line of "expert economists", Paul Krugman among others who advocated for free-trade policies that directly led to nikefication, deindustrialization of US. Now they are nowhere to be seen to take the credit, woops!
The presumption that the credentialed ("expert") knows (or even cares frankly) what's in other common peoples best interest is completely baseless and extremely naive.
The credentialed "experts" being so incompetent and confidently wrong is what gave you the orange. Now orange is the "expert"! And you better listen!
No, I wouldn't call him an expert. I'd call him deeply incompetent and missing basic skills.
Simply having a credential is not enough. You need actual training and expertise — to be good at what you do. I'm thinking of all the scientists and bureaucrats who run things like the NIH, vaccine programs, and air quality/pollution control. Many people do not perceive those programs to be in their self-interest. But in reality they are, regardless of someone's personal opinion.
Instead of going "hmmm, they oppose green policies, which means pollution IS in their self-interests -
ie. they are probably from a coal mining town, working in a fossil fuel petro chemical related industry
or an area with industrial outputs wherein their livelihood solely depends on pollution to a large extent".
Or maybe they can't afford an expensive electric vehicle and an old dirty gas guzzling clunker is the only means of transportation they have.
Or that they move from a pollution free country-side to a polluted dirty city, not because they seek the pollution, but because the opportunities and jobs are more in their self-interests than... ODing on fenta in pristine clean air.
Naah, midwits don't do this.
They presume they are smart and everyone else is stupid and need guidance from the expert (that would be me, the midwit of course), and everything else is derived from it.
When the "expert" gets rejected on basis of incompetence or not acting in their self-interests,
that always upsets the midwit, because the midwit always self-identifies as an expert. And rejection of the "experts" equals rejection of the midwit.
Of course, the midwit never has demonstrated competence (nobody doubts demonstrated competence!), all they have is credentials and university degrees and papers. This frustrates the midwit to no end.
Demonstrated expertise and competence is always outside their abilities and reach - they are far from somebody like John Carmack, Michael Abrash, etc who has many shipped products, you can see his code. Nobody doubts their competency, etc. All they have instead is some sort of paper that says "believe me I'm an expert".
No matter what training, education or experience midwit has... he still is just a midwit at the end of the day.
As per modus operandi of the midwit, you didn't demonstrate anything. You just disagreed.
I implore you to bring evidence where demonstrated competency of John Carmack or Michael Abrash is called into question. Demostrate how that is a phenomenon or a trend. And if you can't, I rest my case.
It is obvious to any reasonable person that in the statement "nobody" doesn't literally mean not a single entity within 8 billion population of the planet.
You said "demonstrated competence" in general, not Carmack or Abrash.
My own competence has repeatedly been questioned, even though I've consistently delivered results on the teams I've been on. My body of work is almost all public so feel free to verify yourself. It turns out that how much you're questioned has a lot to do with race and gender — basically every single highly skilled minority I know has been in this position.
> You said "demonstrated competence" in general, not Carmack or Abrash.
I did specifically mention Carmack and Abrash to give a concrete example of what demonstrated competence is.
And to avoid having to argue some vague, watered down, abstract pedestrian notion of what "demonstrated competence" is.
>My own competence has repeatedly been questioned, even though I've consistently delivered results on the teams I've been on. My body of work is almost all public so feel free to verify yourself. It turns out that how much you're questioned has a lot to do with race and gender — basically every single highly skilled minority I know has been in this position.
It looks like my intuiton has been on point here. You see yourself as a highly skilled, competent expert.
Except others are apparently not always sharing in your self aggrandizing perception of self.
Since you can't come to terms with this, hijinx insues wherein you assume that everyone else is just stupid, irrational instead. Or you surmise that they reject your "competency and expertise" based on irrelevant immutable characteristics.
The amount you can work out (at intensity) is limited by your recovery time.
Thus you take that "supplement" and can do one more rep, or go to gym extra time a week, especially if it comes to "regulated and risky" supplements, then you can do many, many more reps.
The point is, supplements will mostly only help you shore up deficiencies in your diet and generally won't do it as effectively as eating right. No matter how much supplementation you do, you can't out-run a bad diet.
This for MCUs and low powered devices with barely any memory.
32kb of ram and 128kb of flash memory requirement (and some extra space for rendering buffer and framebuffer). Even this is not an insignificant amount for various MCUs.
My old brother ink printer (10-15years ago) had an internal counter which upon reaching some threshold value (20k pages or whatever), would stop printing and would show some error.
To fix it, you had to go into special secret "Maintenance/Service" mode by pressing the right combination of keys and then resetting this value.
Which means it had to be thrown out or sent to "repair/servicing" after N number of pages by design.
The number one thing to do when buying a printer is to check how hackable/refillable it is, and which printer has the most active hacking/refilling systems available from China and other countries that can't afford to buy overpriced originals, etc.
It's the same with toner levels. Printer was saying toner was empty. I reset the toner levels of the printer using that hidden maintenance button combination. It kept printing just fine for a looong time after that.
My HP laser predates most of this idiocy, but even on it the toner levels are brazen lies. I've printed just fine for some 2+ years after the "very low" toner warnings started across all colors (though admittedly quite low volume; it's more a scanner than a printer).
>Everyone who bought into post-industrial "service-based" economies in the 80s is now experiencing economies that are mysteriously failing to thrive.
Fixed it for you. I don't understand how people expect "service-based" economies to actually create any long term wealth, growth or prosperity. Unless you're serving increasingly ever more lattes to each other, and increasingly more "banking-services" and rents upon rents somehow are supposed to "grow" the economy and create "prosperity".
The more you de-industrialize your country and outsource everything, to the point that you're failing to meet even your energy needs, and competency to quickly build plants or infrastructure projects dies out, it's bound to result in at best stagnation and going to the shitter eventually, it's a matter of time.
>In any kind of non-uniform distribution of any good
Not in any kind. It is absolutely the case, if there's mostly untaxed generational wealth transfer.
Imagine this - you are born in this world with nothing. And every parcel of land and property is owned by somebody - somebody who with high likelihood inherited it or hundreds of millions or billions of assets on spawn.
Now obviously, you can inherit all sorts of other factors too - like very valuable social networks and a set of trade skills carefully passed down and tought. But even neglecting those, the largely untaxed generational wealth transfer would naturally lead to massive inequalities and disproportionate amounts of wealth concentrated in few families.
That statement had nothing to do with taxes or inheritance (or any specific financial process in fact). It was simply a (admittedly rather reductive) mathematical statement, which remains true independently of the nature of the underlying good.
My point was that pointing out "Top x% own Top x+y% of good z" doesn't say anything meaningful without contextualizing why (if) this is a bad thing, and what x and y should be for a given z.
Saying "non-uniform distribution" doesn't actually purvey any insight or mathematical "truth" and reveals almost nothing about the actual distribution - other than stating that it's non-uniform (well, duh!).
What you are doing - in essence - is making it sound like gigantic economic inequalities and wealth concentrations in hands of few families are some underlying, unavoidable fact of universe.
While in reality they are - largely - a result of unlimited, largely untaxed generational wealth transfer. And outcomes of other similar policies.
>My point was that pointing out "Top x% own Top x+y% of good z" doesn't say anything meaningful
No, it does. It shows just how grossly wealth is increasingly captured by a small amount of people.
Depending on what those x, y and z, you can gauge the actual shape of the "non-uniform distribution" and how it changes over time. Which is exactly the point.
> Saying "non-uniform distribution" doesn't actually purvey any insight or mathematical "truth" and reveals almost nothing about the actual distribution - other than stating that it's non-uniform (well, duh!).
I'm not sure if you're aware, but you're arguing my point. Without contextualizing the numbers, the headline tells us only that not everybody has the same amount of X.
> It shows just how grossly wealth is increasingly captured by a small amount of people.
The sloganeering and lack of explaining which numbers qualify as "gross" and which as acceptible and worth striving for under headlines like this is precisely what I'm criticizing.
Is it still gross inequality if the top 10% own 60% of wealth? 50%? 20%?
Then I fix the code and tell it all the mistakes it has. And then it does a 180 in tone, wherein - it starts talking as if I wrote the code in the first place with - "yeah, obviously that wouldn't work, so I fixed the issues in your code" and acts like a person trying to save face and present the bugs it fixed as if the buggy code was written by me all along.
That really gets me livid. LOL
reply