Dozens? Don't you mean, probably hundreds of trillions in the observable universe? Not that the number of planets really implies anything when we don't know the probability of life arising on one of them.
I don't doubt that you intended this meaning but doesn't that seem unnecessarily ambiguous to you? Usually when people say "dozens" they mean some small handful of dozens with an absolute number probably smaller than 200 (otherwise most would say "hundreds"). Few people are going to think "hundreds of trillions" when someone says "dozens". If one is expected to think "hundreds of trillions" in this case, it seems they should be equally expected to think "hundreds of quadrillions" which would be incorrect here.
Even if one agrees that "dozens" is accurate to mean "hundreds of trillions" it still misses the mark for the argument because the odds come from the high number of planets. That is to say, there are very low odds that any individual planet harbors life but ostensibly much greater odds that one planet in a set of planets harbors life. Saying "hundreds of trillions" gets that point across better than "dozens".
There are many effective ways to argue against what you're saying, but I'll choose the easiest.
You said "perhaps" it doesn't matter. Well, perhaps it does matter. If there is even a small chance it does matter, we might as well act like it matters.
I'm not actually advocating for or against anything. I'm mostly suggesting there are some assumptions being made and that some concepts need to be better defined so it can be better understood what kind of framework we are thinking in. I think it matters when talking about things at the scale of the universe.
The problem with philosophical abstractions is that you can conceive of just about any possibility. As a crude example, just about any baby you see might grow into a future dictator worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined. Is it really ethical to do anything without first of all screening all children under 3 to ascertain the probability that one of them will wipe out all life on earth by age 40? Shouldn't this be the top priority of our species?
So, your argument (ignoring the appeal to authority) is:
1.Social rights can be reduced entirely to obligations on others.
Dubious. Ignoring that maybe the value to the person granted the social right could outweigh the obligation to others, or that the holistic effect on the system might be greater than its reduced parts.
2. Social rights need to be enforced by those with power.
3. Supporting and legitimizing social rights means supporting and legitimizing a specific source of power that will enforce them.
The jump from 2 to 3 is not entirely clear to me. I think it's a valid stance to be critical, and even unsupportive of any given source of power enforcing social rights, while being fully supportive of the right itself.
4. The ones who end up in positions of power are the most ruthless and power-hungry.
5. Those people being in positions of power is so bad that it outweighs any benefit from the original cause, 1 + 2.
Overall, I'd say the critical flaw of your argument is that it's too reductive and assumes that everything very neatly follows linear, simple paths of power.
In addition, I think you can replace the "social rights" in point 2 with any law, and you will have the same points 3, 4, and 5.
I have had to interact with more than a few predators (socio/psychopaths) so make sure to incorporate them into your responses. Also, be sure to include people with different cultural values when you are working through this.
1. List me some social rights that do not require other people to honor their existence.
2. Because there will be people who do not honor other people's rights, how would you try to get them to do so? There are, afaik, no "unalienable rights" recognized across all human societies and all members therein--if you can provide some, not just aspirational, I'd love to be corrected.
3. You actually use the word "legitimizing". Who codifies and enforces laws? Who informs, persuades, coerces people to honor other people's rights, the laws explicating the consequences of those rights and the punishments for infringement? Who restrains or removes the recalcitrant from harming the rest of society?
5. The concern of how much power we have to relinquish to powerful people to support the N+1 right is the question.
0a. You missed the biggest flaw in my analysis in that I did not show that there is a correlation between the number of rights/obligations and the power given to an executive to enforce them. If just honoring one social right requires power concentration, how much more power is required for allowing other social rights?
0b. Is there a way to restrain the power of the executive enforcing social rights so that they do not have enough power to dishonor them themselves?
-- your last point about replacing social rights with laws is spot on. One good purpose for laws is to support social rights. Once we have laws, we have to have policing and courts and punishment and rehabilitation. We will also have lawmakers and lobbyists because the law is never in final release.
When and how would one use binary vectors for encoding in ML? Do you have to make your model work natively with binary vectors or is there a translation step between float and binary vectors to make it compatible?
High-level though: looked at the Wikipedia page for Crayola colors, selected my favorites, put a filter over them in Affinity Designer, made more edits (have to research my notes to figure out details), and eventually landed at these color stops.
It took a long time to settle on yellow/orange because I've never been able to get a good yellow I was happy with, specifically.
Every customer of a 3rd party cloud provider is going to have a hard time getting Nvidia GPU compute from 3rd party cloud providers - not only is the amount of GPUs available limited, but Nvidia themselves are trying to spin up their own cloud provider offering, and unsurprisingly don't want to help a competitor.
> but Nvidia themselves are trying to spin up their own cloud provider offering, and unsurprisingly don't want to help a competitor
I thought Jensen recently said he does not want to offer their own cloud offering. He instead wants to focus on creating ready made solutions for cloud vendors to purchase & re-sell services with.
Fair point! I think that's a recentish pivot though (past 2-3 years). I vaguely remember that in the late 2010s they were building and testing DGX Cloud as it's own standalone offering, but I might be wrong and confusing some other offerings they were working on.
There are so many basic questions raised in the Launch HN thread that didn’t have good answers. It indicates to me that YC didn’t raise those questions, which is a red flag.
Only a small percentage of tech companies raise a series A or beyond.
To me, this just seems like a capital-efficient alternative to the founder increasing their salary that could be negotiated. I had no such perception that this was some “secret” thing, I assumed it happened since you can do whatever you want if the investors and founders agree that it makes sense.
This whole thread is leaving me very confused. Series A is the first priced round. You're saying only a small percentage of tech companies raise a priced round?
But for software, and my impression is that it is even more like this in most other industries, a huge amount of tech ventures never receive any funding. Many of these are never even properly incorporated and may not be included in datasets. Then, for the ones that do raise seed money, usually with SAFEs, 50-60% of them would fail before raising a significant priced round (series A).
The overall point being, there’s a lot of risk between starting a company and raising a sizeable priced round for most people.
Are we talking about just YC-style internet/app startups? Two of my startups have been deep tech where you can't do shit without a Series A, and the third was crypto in the start of that boom where VCs were begging to lead your Series A. So maybe I just work in a vastly different field.
Yeah deep-tech (which I am also in) plays on a different scale when it comes to funding rounds, simply because of how expensive hardware is and how big the headcount gets to just make MVPs.
My friends in software startups balk at the sheer burn rate and funding rounds at mine. $100mm for a Series A is unheard of in software.
Thank you Thiel for setting the bar so high (the famous, "you need $1billion in total capital to successfully pull off hardware startups" quote).
4o also ends many of its messages that way. It has to be related.
reply