Thinking is still currently unique to living things, so you don't need to resort to what you describe to find the human brain uniquness.
Onto what you describe, it has to do with memory. Memory is storing and playing back sensory input, in the absence of that sensory input. So your brain plays back some past sensory input and checks it against current sensory input.
Eg you left the pen on the table. When you come back the pen isn't there. Your brain compares the stored memory of seeing the pen on the table vs what you see now.
Are we still tossing around the 10x productivity boost? Please make this stop. I see first commit on April 28 so by 10x productivity its like you've been working on this for almost 2.5 years, and there is still a waiting list on the website.
I get the general sentiment. But cursor for sure has improved productivity by a huge multiplicative factor, especially for simpler stuff (like building chrome extension).
Not really a rationale, but many people go like this:
(1) Israel with US, so against Israeli military = against US = you bad!
(2) Israel = Jewish, so if you against Israel then you = anti-semite! = you bad!
(3) Oh, you positive about enemy of Israel, so you against Israel, so you bad!
All of which are, of course, utter nonsense. And of course it cannot be said in a public forum, without people becoming fearful, because the truth has been said. Cannot possibly discuss this! And in case you do manage to state it somewhere, Bots might flag or downvote you into oblivion. That, or people with no clue what's going on in the world and weird misplaced feelings of allegiance.
> , it attempts to normalize the intimidation and censorship of truths
Very muddying statement. The normalization of intimidation and censorship has already happened by those in power, a comment can only acknowledge the reality of it.
> when we know that isn't the consensus nor desired.
by who? Crearly a lot of very powerful people desire it very very much.
Ignore all laws?? EU has officially recognized the utility of these criminal agencies. Of course under the all-time-classic umbrella of "legitimate use for law enforcement" which in common means "go ahead and use it freely, if you get caught we'll give you a slap on the wrist"
Your use case is simplistic so it dismisses actual use cases.
People make money on youtube through ads, you can't do that (as effectively) on your own server. This also ties with the analytics.
Some organisations like the ready-made administration solution. Uploading files through ftp isn't for everyone. Youtube (and hosting platforms) has a nice ui to manage all the content, handles the user authentication etc.
Bandwith.
Backups.
I aggree that for people who don't need all these, and are tech savvy, uploading an mp4 to a server is the way to go.
I think a bigger reason is all of those is the brand trust that YouTube has. If I, as an independent director, make a music video, or a 10-minute tutorial video, or a short cinematic film, and want it to be seen by tens of thousands of people this month, YouTube is where I'm posting it. If you can persuade me that there's a video URL that thousands and even millions of random strangers would be even more likely to click on than one that starts with YouTube.com, I'd be very grateful to know it. Even Vimeo is known to far fewer Gen Z viewers than it has been to Millennials -
Yes CEOs are to blame, but blaming them isn't gonna do anything. They won't change. Who has the motivation and capacity to change things? The working people. Who isn't currently doing it? The working people. So it seems appropriate for me to raise this fact as a problem, the fact that the working people silently go along with all the evil plans ceos put in place
> They already pay taxes preciselly for this purpose!
That gets you employees, but if you've ever hired employees in a private business before you'll know that you have to carefully babysit them or they'll go off and do their own thing. The employees you hire for government are not a different type of creature. The same applies there. Even where there is genuine care to serve your interests as their employer, it is impossible for them to be mind readers. As their employer, your active engagement is an imperative. If you don't literally sit down with them on a regular basis and discuss what needs to be done, you're going to get poor results.
Which is what the parent comment is asserting: That the working people are not acting as the employer. Maybe you're right that the working people don't have the capacity to be the boss, but then what are they arbitrarily hiring employees for?
> Unfortunately Capitalism unhindered by regulation is what we wanted
No "we" don't want it. And those who do want it, let them go live in the early industrial England whete the lack of regulation degenerated masses.
Also, for some reason people still portray capitalism as being something completelky different with or without regulation, it's like saying a man is completelly different in a swimming swit and a costume.
> We, in the western world, were in the privileged position of having a choice, and we chose individual profit over the communal good
Again, "we" did not have a gathering a choose anything. Unless you have records of that zoom session.
> given the fact we're essentially animals.
This is a reductionist statement that doesn't get anywhere. Yes we are animals but we are more than that, similar to being quarks but also more than quarks.
Yes, "we" had the choice. Now nobody can afford homes and would ruin their life if they actually went ahead to demonstrate against the system for an extended period of time. We still have the choice, but nobody is willing to sacrifice their own wellbeing because its easier to live with the minimum, while we shoot billionaires to space.
What does that have to do with the US homeownership rate?
Anyway, that's strictly better than renting the same house for the same rent because you can sell it. The downside of homeownership is extra expenses like repairs are now your problem.
Oh, and you don't get fixed-term mortgages like Americans do I guess.
I know what you're going for, but no, "we" didn't have a choice at all. A select few did, and they convinced many that it was a great idea. I am part of the we, and I did not choose this.
Except I argue that such a choice is emotional. And you captured the essence of what I was saying in other comment.
And I am not sure but like, I have got this one life. Why can't I just be a good guy who wants to help others while still being in the system.
Why do I have to suffer for other peoples decision and have to bear the mental responsibility to.
Nobody's perfect. Neither do I intend to be. We are all gonna die. I just want to leave my community a little bit more charming place. Not bring revolution.
I can't escape the system because this thought terrifies me. It terrifies me because you have to pick your battles wisely. I won't leave my coding job because of llms.
Instead if I am really feeling like trying do good. I can donate extensively and live a frugal life for some time and donate to people who are dying due to hunger and such
And I would still have the freedom to go back at any I stant and stop donating.
The same can't be said about leaving a job. Its hard to reenter
I am not sure lol. But I would much rather build stuff that I like with llms and then donate instead of the project not existing or taking way longer time imo
All the problems regarding AI will be anwered way sooner when people stop calling intelligent that which is literally as dumb as a rock. There is absolutelly 0 intelligence in current state-of-the-art ML programs. Intelligence is not the ability to solve a task, or any amount of tasks (especially the ones you have seen a million times). Intelligence is the act of successfully navigating the unknown, which is by technical definition the weakest point of all ML, from simple regression to NNs to LLMs
Onto what you describe, it has to do with memory. Memory is storing and playing back sensory input, in the absence of that sensory input. So your brain plays back some past sensory input and checks it against current sensory input.
Eg you left the pen on the table. When you come back the pen isn't there. Your brain compares the stored memory of seeing the pen on the table vs what you see now.
reply