The technology to kill hundreds of millions of people has existed for around 75 years now. This has been dealt with in the past through deterrence, and likely will be dealt with through deterrence in the future.
If you could make a nuke in your back yard and hide it in your pocket the world would look a lot different now. Digital technology is everywhere, going to be a whole lot harder to deter that.
You might be able to hide like a hundred drones in your backyard. Enough to kill a couple hundred people, maybe.
You cannot and will never be able to hide millions of drones in your backyard. That’s the relevant difference here. And that is not a mere quantitative difference, that is a qualitative difference that fundamentally changes the situation.
This is great. I've spent a lot of time dealing with 3rd party versions of this (which had all the finickyness expected of a reverse-engineered API) and hopefully this makes headless Spotify less irritating.
I wonder if Anthropic could rent or sell access to their collection to the internet archive? It would probably be a good PR move (which they probably need right now), but I'm not sure what type of legal shenanigans they would need to do in order to not violate copyright law.
Small-n fMRI studies tend to have issues with replication because of how noisy and difficult to use fMRI machines are. I would take this research more as an indication that more research is needed, as opposed to the be-all and end-all of how short-form video interacts with the brain.
(Caveat: I have no expertise with neuroscience or using fMRI machines. I'm mostly basing my comment off pre-replication crisis fMRI experiments that failed to produce useful data upon scrutiny.)
That's a really spectacular UI, and the concept is a lot of fun. However, the market ends up settling on the true value of PONZI ($0) pretty early on (n=2). The first three minutes are great, but after that the price is more or less stagnant.
As for the price movement, I included bots in the game that move the price and provide liquidity by making orders. Even if there are only 2 real players playing against each other, the bots continue to trade and thus provide opportunities to profit from them. I don't find that the price stagnates until there is around 1 minute left, and even then sometimes there is some price movement and thus opportunity to profit.
The bots do have quite a bit of randomness in their decision making, so it could be that you got unlucky and they decided not to do much in your game. If this happens and you also don't decide to make your own moves on the market, it can end up looking like the market is stagnant.
Thanks for taking the time try my game and to provide feedback!
I'm skeptical of the income inequality hypothesis as the US Gini has been mostly stagnant for 20 years (as per https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA). I'd imagine that (social|) media has a fairly large impact on this phenomenon as it makes inequality more visible than before.
As a young person, the data I would like to see on this topic are how AI/tech CEOs compare to CEOs on other industries. I would be surprised if Nadella polled significantly lower than the median non-tech CEO, based on gen Z's opinion of CEOs.
