> ...when birth rates drop in a country its easy to grow population with entire families including babies from countries that are overpopulated - this is a win for everyone including the environment.
> The demands of work have eaten childhood (in zero-sum education races) family life, neighborhoods and social life (people moving all the time for a better job), spiritual life (exhaustion).
> Market liberalism has pushed more and more debt (e.g. student loans), risk (debts for other things like housing), and uncertainty (random layoffs, zero hours contracts, gig economy) onto individuals and households.
This. It's not some bargain-bin homo economicus thinking like the GP proposes ("Children are assets when they can help with farm work..."). It's that capitalism has evolved to squeeze the life out of everything in order to maximize short-term profits for the shareholders, and it's corrupted almost everything that stands in its way.
And with AI, there's hope that capitalism can continue unabated even after literally squeezing the population to death.
>> I wouldn't call it brilliant. It's like cancer cells celebrating how fast they're growing.
> Isn’t that the entire point of a capitalist economy?
> What is the alternative?
If the point is to be cancer, then the alternative is to kill it.
Things are getting so out of hand, this former-libertarian is getting to the point were he'd support any market regulation that makes libertarians cry.
> This is an interesting topic. If a company does something you approve of (e.g. do journalism) and something else you disapprove of (e.g. make canceling hard), is there a good way to signal both as a consumer? This is also relevant in the context of companies like Target, which has been boycotted by both sides of the US political spectrum for various reasons.
No. at least not as a consumer in the marketplace. That's why people who act like the market creates a good fit for consumer preferences or go on and on about things like "revealed preferences" are just plain wrong.
> All fair but very much assumes that salaries are rational. Why do we pay some engineers 10x as much for the same role just because they are in a different location?
Who's this "we" you're talking about? Are you a software engineer or a temporarily embarrassed billionaire? Do you think the rational thing is to pay the lowest regional salary worldwide?
This kind of race-to-the-bottom logic needs to be rejected: by workers, business culture, and the government.
Unfortunately business culture embraces races to the bottom (for everyone but owners and executives), and uses its lobbying might to push the government into tolerating or even supporting it. And there are a lot of deluded workers who (for some reason) seem to be feel smart when they parrot the ideas of people who want to screw them.
> Data centers use very little water, right down to none if they want. And state-of-the-art hyperscale data centers really are operated by AIs.
There are many, many reasons to oppose datacenters. Not the least is they're there to drive inequality to ever-greater heights and they're 21st century version of the toxic waste dump (put 'em where people are weak and marginalized).
But water use is a very simple argument, and sometimes you have to pound on those to get through to the general public that's not immediately affected.
> Sorry but no, you don't get to lie just because your arguments don't resonate with the public. That makes you a bad person.
You misunderstand: data centers usually do use a lot of water, and I think the lie is "data centers use very little water." I believe it's possible for them to use little, but that's a choice that costs money. What I mean was instead of arguing the nuances of cooling or a particular project (which probably keeps all the details secret anyway), it makes sense to simplify and emphasize the water use angle.
> That's the product of math from the point of view of mathematicians. But is it the point of view of those funding math?
That's AI in a nutshell: the only point of view that matters is the point of view of people with a lot of money, and we've finally developed a technology that will allow all those other points of view to be squashed and discarded. The powerful won't need to be bothered with them anymore.
For them, math is an instrument. Disagree? Fuck you, you don't matter anymore. Be excited about the future!
> Now, according to Reuters, external, new controls will allow employees to pause the data collection for "up to 30 minutes at a time" as well as request exemptions from the initiative altogether.
30 minutes of opt out should be enough for anyone. Let's all praise Meta and Mark Zuckerberg for their thoughtfulness, kindness, and empathy!
> Aidenn0 said they're doing their best to accelerate it, and I'm saying "they're" isn't a single monolithic entity and that they're in competition with each other so they're incentivized to go as fast as possible, so it would be hard to hold them back.
Maybe it would run afoul of antitrust regulations, but it's totally realistic for all those competitors to get together and say "hey, we could really fuck up society in our race to get rich with this tech, lets all slow down." And if these companies are run my mature people who don't subordinate every consideration to greed, they'd to it.
> Important to note this did not work if your account had 2FA of any kind
What about what the op said?
> 2FA Doesn't Help
> In case you're wondering, because the system treats this high-privilege recovery flow as a total account reset by the "true" owner, the original 2FA gets thoroughly bypassed in the process.
> Existing sessions are revoked and the password changed with no email, text, or push notification. The actual owner can't initiate recovery because the email and phone numbers now map to the attacker. There's no human to escalate to, it's just you arguing with a chat hoping to take control back while praying they don't do it again.
> And if you're part of the A/B tested accounts on which the AI support option is active, tough luck, you can't even turn it off.
It’s true that existing sessions are revoked; because the password was reset
The reason the target wouldn’t get any notifications at all would be in the case they never setup any additional verification methods to receive these notifications to, since this only worked on accounts w/o 2FA
You can test this on your own account, if you have 2FA enabled and reset your password, you’ll receive notifications to whatever option you have enabled
Also, if you reset the password, it doesn’t remove all 2FA methods on the account (you can test this)
So assuming a threat actor reset the password, they would attempt to login with the correct password but would still need the 2FA code or approval
Your idea is dumb. The world fertility rate is barely above replacement and dropping (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN). Do the math, it doesn't work.
reply