Yes. Amassing obscene wealth is anti-social and immoral. Hording wealth is an action. Anyone with much over $10,000,000 can be assumed to be evil on some level. You don't earn that kind of money, you exploit others for it.
> The Anthropic product adding a feature is not the end of employment or even a step along the way.
I respectfully disagree. Look at the groundbreaking Study Mode added by OpenAI: https://openai.com/index/chatgpt-study-mode/. Teachers are now jobless thanks to that amazing, monumental, revolutionary feature that the genuises at OpenAI added. Every one of their features is AGI.
That explanation makes no sense, obviously. Human beings have been human beings long before things even cost money and will exist long after money is gone.
I'm happy to accept the idea that people are simply brainwashed into thinking they need money and that is the root of their problems, but needing money is not a problem for a human being in and of itself.
Edit: but I think you said it yourself, you seem to think that you're forced to live a certain lifestyle, that's not true. You want to live a certain lifestyle and that lifestyle takes a lot of money.
> Human beings have been human beings long before things even cost money and will exist long after money is gone.
That thinking assumes that money and human behaviour is in a one direction. You first have human behaviour and then you have money, so it would stand to reason that one is subject to the other. However, in reality the relationship is of co-dependency. Human behaviour adapts to the availability of money and what it buys. Have you ever seen trying to reintroduce a wild animal after it's being treated for a long time? You can't just throw it in the jungle and expect them to survive.
> needing money is not a problem for a human being in and of itself.
Which I'm reading that is not essential, following the previous paragraph, which I disagree. Take electricity out, most people wouldn't be able to survive too long. We weren't dependent but we've built lifesyles that are and we are trapped in it. Which doesn't mean we need to return to jungle, it's just that we need to treat the relationship between humans and the economy with much more respect than that.
> you seem to think that you're forced to live a certain lifestyle, that's not true.
I believe you are thinking about a ostentatious lifestyle. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about lifestyle where we are used to electricity and supermarkets. Where everything is taken care of so that we hyperspecialize our skill sets.
The problem is that if anyone at any time feels like they're just annoyed with you or don't want you around anymore they can make an accusation, completely unfounded, that will destroy your life.
The problem is is that a lot of guys walking around that haven't had it happen to them assume it hasn't happened to them because they've been doing everything right when really you've just been lucky so far.
Look, I hope the original author doesn't see this, I don't want to kick people when they're down. But the vast, vast majority of these controversies involve admitted sexual activity which a stereotypical stodgy dad would identify as inappropriate, and I would encourage any men who worry about being cancelled to consider whether he might have a point. While there's no guarantees in life, it's extremely unlikely that a story like this could happen to me, because I don't sleep with people when the propriety of doing so is even remotely in question.
Bitcoin (BTC) doesn't work at all for payments less than $100 (as by design) and so adding a second layer on to that only makes it MORE expensive, not less.
Like saying I can't afford my credit card fees so I'll just take a cash advance on my credit card, put the money in a bank account, then use a debit card for transactions. It makes no sense and would only work to trick a moron that doensn't understand how the system works.
Bitcoin (now called Bitcoin Cash) solved the problem 10+ years ago, then Blockstream hijacked the BTC GitHub repo and injected the SegWit and RBF code that killed the project.
Why not just use Bitcoin Cash? Bitcoin was designed to compete directly with Visa's transaction rate and still can. I don't get why people don't simple use what works?
That still means the chain is growing by 28GB every single day, so 10TB a year.
That's arguably past the point where running a small node is viable, so I would argue you're well into the territory of losing some of the decentralisation properties you want in a cryptocurrency
10TB/yr is like $100-200/yr of hard drives and this price will continue to decrease. Compare this to the transaction fees for a small buisness accepting bitcoin and you will find that it is reasonable. Especially when you consider that reasonably efficient miners start at thousands of dollars.
small nodes don't matter. They can prune or shard the blockchain.
What matters is the economics of medium-sized nodes that are operated by small buisnesses. These are are the entities that have material reasons to run a full node (to accept transactions in an automated manner while preventing theft), and these are the entities that evaluate the rules of the cryptocurrency at the time of transaction.
I'm not sure you are understanding what evidence is. This site is all anecdotes and hearsay, with a couple links to some code. None of that is evidence. All of it looks like ChatGPT summaries. And it doesn't even cover Ohio, it covers one county. There is no comparison to other states and counties to gauge whether this is a hotbed of corruption or just the way the system works. If your concern is exactly that - how the system works - then you need to specifically state the problem and show where in the law it stems from. There is a link that says it goes to Ohio Bill 14, but it does not - it just goes to the home page for the legislature. Your link to filing a grievance returns a 404.
Dude, we're actually supportive of you blowing the whistle if something is wrong, but AI-generated content that doesn't even speak to your concerns about judges (it just throws scores up with zero context) is a far cry from proving allegations of corruption.
I can't bother reading past your first sentence but anecdotes and hearsay is absolutely what constitutes evidence, maybe you are trying to think of the word "proof"?.
reply