Depends on the scale of the company;

At the biggest ones you start to see branches of the organisation dedicated to c level services... Things like a driver awake and ready to go 24/7 (for the whole family), purchasing or even building apartments.

All available in the west, but the distinction is who directly pays for these things.

Even that is subject to shenanigans... above a certain level of wealth the overhead of establishing companies, tax residencies, and complex debt arrangements become a rounding error.

Some of the mechanisms are loopholes, that might be closed l. But many start to interact with international business regulations that exist for considered reasons, and are harder to change even if it is serving as a loophole.

You end up with only the small wealth (one lifetime as a skilled professional) group getting caught

Sanction them and their companies. Sanction countries that accept these anti-society misanthropes. Bar them from the US and any territories, encourage our allies to bar them as well. Investigate those companies for crimes to the full extent of the law.

Nobody needs these billionaires; we can create new billionaires and new products. They think they bring some sort of ultra speciality but in reality they are doing something millions want to do and their monopolistic success is preventing others from succeeding; knocking these giants down makes rooms for new businesses and products. This is the entire thrust of a capitalistic economy.

I don't have any more to fear from politically-influential private-sector billionaires than I do from the government enforcing a sanctions regime.

Innovation can make specific skills obsolete; but only if the output of the process actually gets cheaper or better...

It results in the output becoming available to people at a lower price point.

It's not some artificial social system like unions guilds or cartels, it's a tangible thing that actually produces more output with less (or different) workers.

If the tech CEO dream that they are selling that LLMs replace all white collar work within a few years who is going to have money to buy anything at the lower price point?

Anyone who can still find any way to exchange their time for currency...

Unless you believe that we are actually close to making humans generally obsolete.

You are imagining that the opposite of DEI is discrimination, whereas most see the opposite of DEI as merit.

The irony is that DEI promotes merit by forcing companies to justify hiring beyond basic “cultural fit” vibes.

I’ve been in the business and seen a ton of hires on vibes. DEI actually asked people to expand the talent search, not hire anyone unqualified (which is what the anti-DEI folks are desperate to have us believe it did).

I predict some major EEO lawsuits will eventually bring the pendulum back in the other direction because my sense is that the return to vibes hiring (and RIF-ing) is resulting in very actionable discrimination cases.

  > my sense is that the return to vibes hiring (and RIF-ing) is resulting in very actionable discrimination cases.

Your sense? Based on what?

The enthusiasm for disparaging DEI combined with a lack of articulation of how they plan to quantify 'qualifications' in a non-biased manner. My sense is that they don't plan to do this at all, they don't have a plan, and they are going to blunder into patterns of discriminatory practices that DEI frameworks were protecting them against.

If DEI operated on merit, there would be no need for the special new concept of DEI.

Ive seen many cases where HR stalls hiring until the most qualified candidates move on, prefilter insufficiency "diverse" candidates from the pool presented to teams, or implement internal quotas to meet external funding or contract requirements.

Not to mention the actual external requirements for "diversity" from public tender process, government backed funding bodies, and politically protected mega wealthy.

If hiring practices were purely operating on merit and free from discrimination, we wouldn't have studies repeatedly showing that people with the 'wrong' names, and otherwise identical resumes, weren't called back as frequently.

> Ive seen many cases where HR stalls hiring until the most qualified candidates move on

HR departments have screwed around with delays in the interview process long before anyone ever imagined the concept of expanding the candidate pool, doing blind resume screening, and standardizing the interview process. I don't think having fairer hiring processes created this problem.

Only to a limited extent, the fine tuning of these models uses a much smaller more curated set to generate tone and defaults.

The whole corpus is in there, but the standard style is tuned for.

I like that there are models with divergent politics; the status quo being creepy corporate left silicon valley is not healthy or pleasant to interact with.

Even with grock it's only broadening things to creepy corporate right of silicon valley.

I'll take the fake corporate "left" over white supremacy any day.

I suspect that culturally for Americans to embrace trains, you probably need segregation; a free class and a ticketed class with a bouncer.

Riding the the train daily is the norm in the eastern United States. The urban density and shorter distances between metros allows it to be affordable.

The US is massive... riding the train between most cities is dramatically more expensive than flying and takes most of a day if not multiple days between cities.

I used to commute weekly between two cities in Texas and it was a 2 hour flight. (Houston - Lubbock)

i mean the Shinkansen has two classes as well :)

three, now!

As do some European high speed trains. I make it a point to book first class (or equivalent) tickets as that often comes with lounge access at the stations - which lets you mostly avoid the rampant pickpocketing and other petty crime that absolutely infests many European train stations.

This to me is one of the most apparent failures of modern taboo infecting people's ability to communicate, or even reason.

Eugenics is not ethical, for a variety of very good reasons; that does not mean that it's unscientific.

We know that intelligence is heritable; we have observed epigenetic group trends like the Flynn effect to the point where they plateau...

The biggest unknown in my opinion is how stable the gains we have made are. If we have our education systems disrupted, or some nutrition crunch, does the population average drop to the point where the complex systems we depend on are not maintained?

Eugenics is a taboo because there is a tempting trap to over simplify and make assertions that are not actually supported by the data.

We know that IQ is hereditary to an unknown degree. We have some evidence that IQ relates to intelligence.

We don’t know really know which genetic variables are responsible. Even simple features like height are thought to have ~12k variables.

We don’t even really have a good definition of intelligence (see any AGI comment chain).

I would say that assuming we have good enough data or models to base important decisions on is unscientific.

Decisions like improving education and nutrition don’t really need to help.

No, it's taboo because actually trying to implement it requires invalidating individual human rights... And requires creating an authority who decides what traits should be passed on or removed.

So people hear the word, and react to the word at some toddler level "it's yucky!", and stop reasoning altogether.

> Even simple features like height are thought to have ~12k variables.

But you wouldn't deny that there are groups of people who are tall and groups who are short.

In terms of what one person consumes, it would be rare to make full use of it.

I wonder if this speed was available everywhere, would more people self-host?

Doesn't really work, men are stronger than women at the same weight...

And that's at the peak of fitness; lower level competitions with juniors or not optimallyfit people exaggerate the strength difference.