> AI tools look like that, but don't have any of the useful conflict which came for free with employing humans.
Sure, but your list should also include the most fundamental distinction: AI does not know what it is saying, understands nothing, has no real connections to reality and can easily degenerate in all kinds of undesirable directions.
It does, over time. It changes the way you think about computational problem solving. It's like the difference between designing objects in 2D on a drafting table and moving to 3D CAD. It changes your brain visualizes, explores and solves problems.
That said, learning APL isn't about learning the symbols any more than learning mathematics is not about learning the meaning of the various symbols it uses. To continue with that parallel, it also isn't about memorizing formulas. It is about using the tools to solve problems and, over time, changing the way you solve problems...now in 3D.
I learned APL in the early 80's and used it professionally for about ten years. The way I think of solving problems is fundamentally different in many ways because of this experience.
> the lesson has become “sometimes assholes are geniuses"
In my experience, the asshole label, when faced with competence comes from people who are incompetent, insecure or, very often, both. I've seen this in action more than once.
When someone who is --to generalize-- one standard deviation more competent than a group comes into that group, they tend to be attacked like white blood cells attack foreign matter. Office politics and culture can be brutal and destructive this way. If everyone is comfortable, professionally non-threatening and at the same relative competence level, all is well. Smooth sailing. Introduce someone significantly better and you have a problem.
I might be unpopular, but that does not make it not real. I have witnessed this kind of thing multiple times in different organizations and at different levels over my 40+ year career.
I think of it as what happens in the show Survivor, where people sometimes team-up and vote out the strongest players because they perceive them as a threat, rather than taking advantage of them to help the team advance in the game. In other words, it's human nature.
> Potholes, park maintenance, housing shortages, pollution. As long as we're have unsatisfied needs, there's work to be done. I also see unemployment.
Stop voting for the people who have consistently allowed this to happen. We give them a tremendous amount of money. They misallocate it, waste it and allow fraud to happen to the tune of billions.
This has nothing to do with this communist/socialist view of the world that I see emanate from your comment. This is plain and simple: Government incompetence, fraud and theft.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with private industry.
This also has nothing whatsoever to do with unemployment rate. You are not going to take a 57 year old bank teller who was let go and put her to work fixing potholes on the highway.
And the connection to maximizing profits is even funnier. Do you realize that a company that maximizes profits pays more taxes? Do you realize that a person who maximizes profits through higher salaries or investments pays more taxes? Which means that the government has more money to allocate towards fixing the problems you noted?
I have stopped. I get chastised constantly for it. Leftist candidates are rare, most mainline dems are center right. I catch so much flak from vote blue no matter who types (who then go out and don't vote for Mamdani).
If candidates want my vote, they can offer literally anything as a concession. I'm not holding some purity standard.
> You are not going to take a 57 year old bank teller who was let go and put her to work fixing potholes on the highway.
You doing think there are other needs people have? Social needs, where years of customer service experience would be desirable? Or financial advice? Potholes are a stand in. Think bigger.
It's almost as if government corruption is not a byproduct of the system of government, but a byproduct of the fact that it's filled with people, and when people accrue power they will, by and large, abuse it.
> It's almost as if government corruption is not a byproduct of the system of government, but a byproduct of the fact that it's filled with people, and when people accrue power they will, by and large, abuse it.
If only there were a system to align incentives toward a common good under the assumption that everyone is corrupt and will therefore seek to maximize their own interests....
What are the incentives for corrupt people to fix potholes under a purely capitalist economy? No one's making any money from that. But it causes damages to everyone.
You need some kind of government for such things as education, healthcare, roads... fixing potholes...
> What are the incentives for corrupt people to fix potholes under a purely capitalist economy?
Well, in a purely capitalist economy, the answer would be property rights, competition, and liability. For example, a road would be owned by someone, and you could sue that someone for damages if the road damaged your car. A road owner could discharge liability risk by purchacing insurance, and insurance underwriters could require some minimum standard of maintenance from owners in exchange.
> You need some kind of government for such things as education, healthcare, roads... fixing potholes...
The whole point of the article that spawned these discussions is that society has already delegated the responsibility for fixing potholes to the government, and the government is doing a crappy enough job of fixing potholes that "art activists" need to make potholes into public art projects to get the government to actually do its job.
Some libertarians moved in the small town of Grafton, NH [0], with the explicit goal of turning it into a "Free Town".
> This resulted in eliminating funding to the county's senior-citizens council, town offices going unheated during the winter, poorly maintained roads filled with potholes, and the Grafton Police Department being reduced to one officer (the police chief), who said he was unable to answer calls for service as the town had no money to repair the one police vehicle left. Other issues were inconsistent basic public services, such as trash collection.
Most roads are unprofitable individually, but still beneficial to the greater economy. It's very unrealistic to expect private individuals to build and maintain them. And the logistics of paying for every street one drives one, and the profiteering this enables sounds hellish.
There was a time when the government was able to build and fix stuff. We should probably get to fixing that, by kicking out the parasitic contracters, actually hiring competent civil servants at competitive wages, taxing the ever-increasing wealth of the top 1%, etc. Not by privatizing roads, which is a nonsensical idea that failed miserably anytime it was tried.
The golden age of America (and the West) happened when redistributive taxation was maximal and the government had the means and the will to improve citizens life. We've been privatizing stuff ever since the 1980s with arguably disastrous results. It's time we came back to first base.
You can be a libertarian without being a capitalist, and you can be a capitalist without being a libertarian, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with a [completely accurate] libertarian dig when the original point was that if the system was more capitalist, it would get fixed faster and better.
> actually hiring competent civil servants at competitive wages
I think most people would be open to increasing cash government salaries if the rest of the job also matched the broader economy - at-will employment, no public sector unions, etc. You trade some of your cash compensation in the government for the cushy benefits, sub-40 hour work week and lots of time off, and the near impossibility of being fired especially once you've been there for a few decades.
The golden age of the West happened due to a war-time manufacturing boom that would put the industrial revolution to shame. If you're making a ton of money and your marginal tax rate is 90%, what incentive do you have to work another ten hours a week or open another factor or release a new product if you're only keeping 10% of what you earn?
> You can be a libertarian without being a capitalist, and you can be a capitalist without being a libertarian
If you say so, but I'm yet to meet such an individual. Anytime someone talks libertarianism, it's some kind of weird Randian objectivism, that is still somehow socially conservative, and they align themselves with the GOP more often than not.
I would consider myself pretty liberal (as in, pro-liberty). I just believe that to experience true freedom, equality is necessary. It's not enough to have the freedom to do X or Y, you also need to have the means to. Why should some people be freer than others just because they happened to be well-born?
> the system was more capitalist, it would get fixed faster and better.
The system is getting more capitalist. That's why we're having more and more potholes. After decades of neoliberal austerity and deregulation, there ain't any money left to fix shit.
What a government employee used to do in an hour of minimum wage now requires 10 government contractors who charge ludicrous sums for useless prestations, and don't even end up delivering because they've successfully lobbied themselves out of liability! You know, in the name of efficiency, since as we all know the government can't do anything by itself, and the private sector is that much more efficient.
> I think most people would be open to increasing cash government salaries if the rest of the job also matched the broader economy - at-will employment, no public sector unions, etc. You trade some of your cash compensation in the government for the cushy benefits, sub-40 hour work week and lots of time off, and the near impossibility of being fired especially once you've been there for a few decades.
I would argue that the rest of the economy should follow the standards of public servants, rather than degrade their working conditions to match this terrible job market.
> The golden age of the West happened due to a war-time manufacturing boom that would put the industrial revolution to shame.
That's a partial myth, a manufacturing boom alone is meaningless if the generated wealth isn't redistributed. Markets have never been this healthy, yet regular people aren't getting any richer.
Same thing for the industrial revolution. It didn't amount to much for the general population until the big labor movements and the invention of unions.
> If you're making a ton of money and your marginal tax rate is 90%, what incentive do you have to work another ten hours a week or open another factor or release a new product if you're only keeping 10% of what you earn?
Look, it worked in the 50s. I am not interested in the classic economist's argument of "it works in practice, but does it work in theory?". You can probably find books written by people much better informed than I am. For instance, do you know about Thomas Piketty?
- Term limits (2 consecutive terms max)
- No stock market participation in any form during office
- No corporate or PAC contributions
- Prison for lying to the public or during the course of their work (hearings, media, etc.)
- Serious legal consequences for defamation or libel
- No special medical/healthcare insurance, accounts or treatment
- Pensions only bases on their own contributions, nothing else
- No lifetime pensions or healthcare
- This one is tough: Consequences for campaign promises not met (part of no lies)
- Consequences for shutting down government
- Serious consequences for not balancing the budget or driving meaningful reductions that will result in a balanced budget in short order
- No media-related jobs for five years after leaving office
- No book deals for five years after leaving office
- No movie deals for five years after leaving office
- No fancy office anything that costs more than your average Ikea/Walmart office furniture
- Severe consequences for illicit enrichment; a bartender cannot come out of Congress a multi-millionaire, period.
In other words, like any real job by average citizens. They should not be a privileged and protected class.
Politicians enjoy a pile of benefits and privileges that the average citizen has no access to at all.
Simple example: They can lie to you and suffer no consequences. If you lie to them, even a minor lie, you can end up with serious criminal charges.
You took the list as literally applying to average citizens.
You took this part:
"In other words, like any real job by average citizens."
and completely ignored the next sentence:
"They should not be a privileged and protected class."
That's the point.
They are supposed to work for us and represent us, and yet they fly far above us at so many levels it is incredible. This is what students should be demonstrating about. It is destructive and equally corrupt regardless of political party.
In other words, it should be a universal truth (no party exceptions) that politicians should not exist as a class above those who elect them. Simple examples are health insurance, consequences for lies, fully paid lifetime benefits and pensions, etc. This is wrong.
These conversations are always interesting. Most treat the world as a single variable problem when, in reality, it is an exceedingly complex multivariate problem. And the Arab world sure is responsible for a large number of variables to decipher reality from a simple article that ignores so much.
Others have mentioned China as a benevolent actor of sorts. I find this interesting, maybe even laughable. China is not interested in coming to the aid of anyone in the world. I am not saying this to criticize China. I believe this is purely a statement of fact: They don't do that.
If we pulled it forward to modern times, China, for example, would not put it all on the table and lose nearly 500K lives to save Europe in a world war. They exist for one thing, and one thing only: To do business that benefits their nation. And that's it.
Again, not being critical, just stating what I believe to be a fact. I can also say that I envy that focus to some extent. It's "China first" to an extreme level.
OK, so, if we accept my premise: Who in the world would come to the aid of societies in need?
Let's also agree that perfection does not and will note ever exist on this planet. So, insisting on perfect interventions, actions and outcomes is not rational. We are --humanity-- not perfect.
Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role. Europe has self-decimated over the decades in terms of these capabilities. So, they can't. Africa? Asia? Who's left? Nobody.
Without a doubt, the Arab world --or Middle East in general-- has been a complex neighborhood for quite some time. Yet, things have gotten massively worse when a country like Iran sponsors murderous terrorists in the region and --as confirmed by the current conflict-- makes it a point to build-up a Middle-East-Annihilation arsenal of missiles that could have almost no other purpose than to obliterate everything around them and even as far as Europe.
And then you add the potential for some of these missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
And then you add a regime that simply has not been a rational actor.
So, what do you do? Do you wait until they are a nuclear power? Just like we waited for Hitler to come to power and kill millions of Jews and others? How much slack do you give a regime who's publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?
Without a doubt, the actions of the last month or so have not been perfect. They will not be. That's just reality. For example, I don't understand how sinking their entire navy, destroying their air force, destroying their anti-aircraft capabilities, some 20,000 sorties and targets later...we still have to make a deal with them to keep Hormuz open.
How does that happen? Drones and missiles, of course. What is remarkable is that you'd think we would have mitigated that danger to the point where the international waters of the strait would no longer be threatened. I don't understand why stupid reporters never ask this question. Well, I answered it right there.
And yet, to go back to the thought: Who else but the US could have even approached setting Iran back far enough to make the neighborhood less of an issue? China? They would never. They have happily been selling Iran weapons hardware and know-how. They do not exist to benefit the rest of the world. China first. That's the policy.
Can anyone imagine just how far worse --horrific, really-- this would be if Iran had gone nuclear in the next few months or couple of years? This would truly be unimaginable. We've already seen that NATO does not seem to be willing to engage and might be largely useless.
So, while not perfect, at this point in time I believe that this is one of those "treating the cancer early" scenarios. Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics. This, while not ideal, not perfect, not desirable, not pretty, is likely a good thing. Now it has to end with the right outcome, whose minimum definition is to denuclearize Iran. From there, it would be nice to see the wonderful Iranian people get out from under the oppression they have been living under for so long. If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful. Same with Venezuelans, BTW.
> Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics.
No, they were not. No more than Saddam was close to having WMDs. Your entire premise is based on Israeli lies.
> How much slack do you give a regime whose publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?
How about you answer what we are supposed to do with regimes whose actual actions over the last 80 years have been the destruction of others? I'm talking about the US and Israel, btw.
> If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful
How many of them actually live in Iran? I'm sure the monarchists in LA love that the country is being leveled.
You do realize that the Iranian government (whatever remains of it) is actually insisting, as a condition, that their nuclear materials not be removed from the country?
Burden of proof lies on the accuser. There is no proof. Just the same Israeli lie that Iran is weeks away, for years and years.
Demanding the sovereignty to enrich nuclear materials for energy purposes does not mean they have or want nukes. They won't be able to have the triad anyway, so you can argue having a nuke would be a strategic misstep since they can't guarantee MAD anyway. Better to be able to utilize your large rocket arsenal to wage war and not have people think you are launching a first strike.
Stop trolling. You are speaking like the theocratic Iranian regime were saints building gardens and farms. C'mon. Who do you think you are fooling. They funded nearly all of the terrorism that has been causing so much mayhem in the Middle East and beyond. Now, if you are a Jew hater, so be it. There's nothing I can say to make you accept that Israel could not invent terrorists launching HUNDREDS of missiles into their territory. Yet, you are convinced that Iran is a good actor in world politics that was not within reach of something that could have launched us into and unthinkable version of WW3.
So be it. You are free to believe whatever you wish.
> Yeah, if you only subscribe to the US view of the world, then of course the US are the good guys.
Kindly show me where I said that "the US are the good guys".
There are no good guys in this crap. The world is a mess. And you cannot do any of this without things getting messy.
As for my opinion: As a US citizen, I would be perfectly fine with the US closing down all military bases in Europe and elsewhere. Bring it all home.
If Europe wants to defend their territory, they should do it themselves. The US funds somewhere around 70% of NATO. We should exit that thankless organization. Countries like Spain can face reality on their own. We can use the money at home. I don't know how much we spend on all the bases around the world. I'd shut them all down. Again, <insert country here> can invest their own citizen's taxes to defend themselves.
I'd say the same about the UN. We are spending billions to support that organization. Why? Let someone else host them, we'll gladly show up and vote.
In other words, if all the US has gained at an international level for what we have done, it's time to stop.
I don't have a problem with this at all. It isn't about being an isolationist. It's about what we are paying for and how we are being taken advantage of.
This is very similar with the situation we had with drugs. We pay for the R&D here and Europe (and others) enjoyed low drug prices because they did not have to pay for it. We subsidized low prices around the world. Now that is largely ending. Drug prices are going up around the world because we are no longer going to be taken advantage of in that domain. If you want the drugs we develop, pay your fair share of the R&D.
Is any of the above simple or perfect in concept and execution? No. Of course not. Name anything in international relations that is. Nobody can. It does not exist. But you certainly can try to do the right thing and end-up people hating you for it. Whereas those who do nothing don't have that problem. Funny how that works.
Drug companies pay for the trials, but most R&D is done in public institutions, and a big part in Europe (unless you count adding a piece of plastic to a ventoline cap to avoid loosing it a 'new drug', Europe public universities/labs are the sources of mire new drugs/molecule and techniques than anywhere else)
You have repeatedly stated you’d be happy for the US to shut its bases in Europe and pull their troops out, and stop funding NATO. Do you believe it should take the same stance with Israel? If not, why not?
I think it would be good for the world to see the reality of society around the world. So, yeah. Everything, everywhere at the same time.
Let's see Europe protect itself. Let's see the Middle East decide if they are a region that wants to support world terrorism or --on their own-- achieve peace. Let's see if China helps anybody.
I am perfectly comfortable with at least a one decade pullback. I see no reason for US citizens to subsidize countries all over the world to the tune of over $80 billion dollars and absolutely burn far more than that protecting Europe and others. Pull that back 100% and let's see what the world looks like. Invest that money internally on real infrastructure (not California bullshit projects that never get done), education, healthcare, housing and so many things we need far more than protecting the universe.
Yeah, I'd vote for that. I am sick un thankless nations always pointing a finger at the US. Let's eliminate that target and see how places like Spain and the UK and others do when they need help and we are busy watching it from across the ocean.
Nobody expects China to run the next protection racket. Because no matter how people try to whitewash, a protection racket is not something decent people (or countries) do.
Sure. Read my prior comment. We (the US) should pull out of every nation, NATO and stop funding the UN. If the world needs help, each nation can face it on their own or team-up on a case-by-case basis to deal with their issues.
I don't claim the US to be perfect. Not even close. Yet, we cover 70% of Europe's defense (likely more), fund the UN to the tune of billions, etc.
It's 2026. I think it's time for everyone who thinks the US is evil to just step back and be responsible for their own shit. Fine with me. I'd rather invest that money here for infrastructure, education, affordable housing, healthcare, etc. No more miliary bases outside the US. No more funding for NATO or the UN. No more subsidies for dozens of nations.
> Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role.
Canada would like a word.
US deaths in WW2: 420k
US population in 1940: 132000k
US death rate from WW2: 318/100k
Canada deaths in WW2: 43k
Canada population in 1940: 11300k
Canada death rate from WW2: 380/100k
US deaths in WW1: 117k
US population in 1918: 103000k
US death rate from WW2: 114/100k
Canada deaths in WW2: 66k
Canada population in 1918: 8100k
Canada death rate from WW2: 814/100k
More recently, in Afghanistan, Canada sent its military and incurred 0.5 deaths/100k population. The US military incurred deaths of 0.8 deaths/100k. US contractors took a hit of 1.2 deaths/100k.
The military death rates per 100k military members sent were 390/100k for Canada and 290/100k for the US.
Took my first couple of Uber Waymo rides today in Austin. The experience was pleasant, felt perfectly safe and very well implemented. Yes, it did do a couple of interesting things here and there. In all cases it felt like it made decisions in favor of safety, which is good. In fact, the rides felt just like how I taught my kids to drive, patient, safe and looking ahead for planning and making decisions.
I also thought about Tesla's problem, which is interesting: No recognition whatsoever.
This, I think, is critical. If you are in Austin, it is impossible not to see Waymo's driving around seemingly everywhere. You see them, watch them interact, interact with them (crossing the street, etc.) and start thinking "I have to try this".
I have no clue if there are Tesla robot taxi's driving around Austin. Why? Because I can see Waymo's on the road a block away and recognize them due to the very visible hardware stack they carry. Tesla's? They all look the same. no clue what a Tesla autonomous vehicle might look like, much less see them in action and watch them navigate traffic at a distance and close-up.
So, for a few days, the thought was "I have to ride a Waymo" and Tesla did not even remotely own any part of that sentiment.
They have a big problem. It's the lack of non-trivial physical branding.
I thankfully learned that lesson about twenty years go. Google had a product that allowed you to park domains with them for ad insertion to generate some revenue. Owning over 400 domains at the time I though, why not?
The process through which you parked the domains with Google entailed loading a file with the list of domains, after which each one would, in turn, be approved or denied. All 400+ domains were approved.
A few days later I received a cryptic message about unusual click activity on the domains and the Google account I had at the time was shut down immediately without recourse. I visited a few of the pages (not all 400, maybe a dozen) as they were approved to see what they put on them. Of course I did not click on anything. I might be accused of being stupid, but I am not an idiot. Besides, I pretty much knew the income would be a rounding error, maybe a few cups of coffee per year, maybe.
Well, nobody to call, text, email or send smoke signals to. Nothing.
That's when I decided I would never do business with Google. All I use from them is search. That's it. Nothing else. I can't trust them with anything that is business related and anything personally important.
Gmail? No way. I pay for Zoho mail for all the email accounts for my businesses and I am very happy about the product, the service and the isolation from a despotic company that can shut down your life in a microsecond.
> I would never do business with Google. All I use from them is search. That's it. Nothing else.
Given that's their main business and they are likely to graveyard whatever domain penny business you've got burnt by anyway, you're still doing a lot of business with them
> Given that's their main business and they are likely to graveyard whatever domain penny business you've got burnt by anyway, you're still doing a lot of business with them
That's a gross misinterpretation of what "doing business with" means.
Yes I do, that's why I pay for Kagi instead of having ads injected into the top of my results page and a company who's business model is based on me clicking on ads instead of actually finding what I want.
One difference to something like email is that you can change search providers with minimal effort. There’s no server-side context to back up or migrate, no third parties involved: you just use a different URL.
When you get bad results from a search engine, you refine the query. Maybe try a different search engine! You have options. When it's your personal email address you don't have options. You are at the mercy of said email provider. You can run that email yourself, sure, but that isn't for everyone. Does that explain the difference?
Pinterest is useful. I mostly use it to get industrial design ideas on some projects. They do send other email without stupid titles. Those are "like" fine.
> it could also hack your home network, delete your family pictures folder, log into your bank account and wire all your money to shrimp charities.
It's interesting that Jason Calacanis is fully committed to OpenClaw. In a recent podcast he said that at a run rate around $100K a year per agent, if not more. They are providing each agent with a full set of tools, access to online paid LLM accounts, etc.
These are experiments you can only run if you can risk cash at those levels and see what happens. Watching it closely.
Sure, but your list should also include the most fundamental distinction: AI does not know what it is saying, understands nothing, has no real connections to reality and can easily degenerate in all kinds of undesirable directions.
reply