peanuts4life

I had a friend who's niece, an American, was able to travel to use these. It was a difficult path to research and get these services, as well as expensive, but it definitely helped them a lot.

Still loving my 1070!

It's really concerning how many comments are snidly dismissive or in some cases outright hostile to this particular peice of reporting.

Does Hamas deny that the hostages were kidnapped or mistreated? Are the circumstances of these particular people's capture suspect? Are thier experiences disputed?

I see no comments even attempting to say so. It reads as wantonly jingoistic.

"our fake history" is a pretty good match to what you're describing. It's a relatively light hearted, rigorously researched, history podcast with a focus on misunderstood historical figures and events.

"The plastic plesiosaur podcast" is a really fun podcast more focused on cryptids and pop science.

One of the host to plastic plesiosaur has a YouTube channel called "trey the explainer" which is worth a watch.

And if you like low key, entertaining deep dives into machining or tech, check out "technology connections," "this old Tony," and "tech moan."

Man, reading the hacker news comments is grim. A deeply cynical and shallow series of takes on an interesting subject.

This thing has been in development since I was a teen. I wonder if it will ever actually be a viable vehicle. My heart wants to say yes, but I don't know... These might not have much of a future.

Imo, the true fallacy of using AI for journalism or general text, lies not so much in generative AI's fundamental unreliability, but rather it's existence as an affordable service.

Why would I want to parse through AI generated text on times.com, when for free, I could speak to some of the most advanced AI on bing.com or openai's chat GPT or Google bard or a meta product. These, after all, are the back ends that most journalistic or general written content websites are using to generate text.

To be clear, I ask why not cut out the middleman if they're just serving me AI content.

I use AI products frequently, and I think they have quite a bit of value. However, when I want new accurate information on current developments, or really anything more reliable or deeper than a Wikipedia article, I turn exclusively to human sources.

The only justification a service has for serving me generated AI text, is perhaps the promise that they have a custom trained model with highly specific training data. I can imagine, for example, weather.com developing highly specific specialized AI models which tie into an in-house llm and provide me with up-to-date and accurate weather information. The question I would have in that case would be why am I reading an article rather than just being given access to the llm for a nominal fee? At some point, they are not no longer a regular website, they are a vendor for a in-house AI.

Pregnant dinosaurs 🙏😊🌸

True! I personally feel that UBI would be the easiest pill for the West to swallow. It is totally compatible with capitalism, and addresses the most urgent needs of individuals.

I feel like a slightly more radical solution which is also compatible with capitalism would be laws requiring substantial stake in ownership in companies for workers. Proportional to the quality of employees and time worked. Meaning, that if you work 15 years at Amazon and get replaced by a robot, you see some passive income over time for the value you contributed. Likewise, the sale or liquidation of a company would see past workers getting some sort of payout.

People do lament poverty and the consolidation of wealth into owners through the displacement of the worker.

Just because we run swiftly in front of the whip of capitalism does not mean we should dismiss those who trip and fall. We should be angry that there is a whip at all.

I get what you are meaning to say, that secondary sexual characteristics dictate certain trends and limits. I agree.

However, what I find interesting is that historically, the bulk of manual labor was done by the lowest class cultures. It depends on the time and place, but indentured servants, slaves, and women of the household were expected to do most of the labor. These decisions were not made on the merits of absolute physical strength, but rather by ones social status.

In fact, the strongest men. Those with the most physical apitude and power, tended to enjoy leisure at the expense of these lower classes. Including thier women.

The idea that strong men make strong countries, or do the best work, is a myth. Typically, wealth is built by poor men, women, and subjugated social classes, and the mythical status of the strong man gender stereotype serves to justify this arrangement.

So yes, the strongest biological male human will probably always outlift the strongest biological female, but the actual outcomes of who does the work is decided by gender, and historically, the labor fell on the woman. See what I mean about gender being, "bad?"

I think a common misconception is that people will find new jobs. If I'm remembering correctly, studies on automation of furniture production found that displaced workers mostly just fell into poverty.

Certainly SOME people will find better jobs, but if it were simple and easy for people to find "high skill jobs" instead of thier warehouse work, they would have already done it.