I would say democracy is less of a problem, the problem is lack of accountability at least on constitutional level. One of the biggest thing I’d add to the constitution is a rule that mandates for every dollar we spent on the military, another dollar must be spent on education.
I knew putting Ubisoft on the blacklist was a good idea a decade ago. Everyone should blacklist them as well, just let them die as a company.
deleted by creator
Something like this requires a constitution amendment…
deleted by creator
I would say Project Zombiod the closest one on that list. Just need a few mods to raise the hunger rate, more comprehensive nutrient stats, and farm difficulty scaling. The game already laid out most of the groundwork.
Yeah, I agree, it looks very lacking overall.
It would make more sense if community just set up contracts amongst themselves to pool together with monthly community fund added to the pile and if something happened, then a clause in the contact begins and facilitate the steps to release fund for that person. Contract could set up arbiter (paid hourly) to determine whether the claim is covered by the contract agreed by the subscribers.
The major difference in this model is basically that the perverse incentive is removed whereas commercial insurance have every incentives not to pay out to claimants which defeats the purpose of insurance in the first place.
I don’t know much about insurance laws or contracting to say for sure, but part of me is wondering why we haven’t popularize this idea yet.
Yep, streamlining the process to write a new compiler. Most compiler development utilize something like Bison/Flex or by handwriting their own lexer/parser, but those things doesn’t generate AST tree and you still have to read/modify that AST tree before reading it to generate the final resulting code.
The sheer absurdity in scale of development increases when you realizes that you also have to do the same for LSP server.
Melosynthos is came up with to think about streamlining all of this in one unified workflow.
This is a Pandora box situation, when potential use for malicious purposes on AI on the ponderance of evidence outweigh the goods, one have to conclude that it is necessary to ban it from the purpose of monitoring. This have immense impact on disabled workers for instance.
It’s actually superior to ChatGPT, because of much higher context memory of about 100,000 tokens whereas GPT-4 only got at most 32,000 tokens. Plus you can upload doc and then query on it.
If that is common in your area, I would probably go with grow tent as my next step.
Microsoft: “Gotta keep all of the telemetries and AI running 24/7 of course!”
I don’t think it’s possible for them to do so, because that would means killing the gaming aspect of Windows. GPU on cloud is stupidly overpriced and expensive, just look at Standard_NV6 for an example, it easily cost $10,000/yr according to this (Just look for anything that have “N” in it’s name for GPU enabled VM and they are all expensive.)
If they try to ban everyone from being allowed to use their own computer hardware, I really doubt people would stay on Windows, they most likely would be in the 5 stages of griefs and then contemplate on switching to either Linux or Mac OSX.
I would honestly hope you bring it up to your agency to start offering chat channels that are end to end encrypted and have all history wiped clean after certain period of time.
Probably both and Network Effect is still a thing that he would consider.
And bonus when you have steel ball attached weapon and toss it to hit the big button switch in the shrine.
I think it’s better to create a division between corpo-social media and public social media. Everything that corporation does just muddle the water.
Could we think about repurposing the down-vote function to serve a different role? Similar to the report function, which signals a need for moderator review, the down-vote could be used in the same way to flag content that might require a second look. This could assist in handling extreme or illegal content without suppressing diverse opinions or content simply because it doesn’t receive wide agreement.
What if we displayed only the “+1” upvotes on the website without showing any down-vote counts? This would maintain a positive atmosphere and could encourage more open dialogue. Essentially, a down-vote would transition from meaning “I disagree” to “this might need reviewing”.
Importantly, if content isn’t extreme or illegal but still gathers a significant amount of down-votes, it could be an indicator for the moderator to assess if further action is necessary. This shifts the down-vote function from being a tool for disagreement to a measure for maintaining the quality of discourse.
Obviously there would be exceptions, but in general for the last few decades, we have been mainly engaging conflicts outside of the US. So until it is in our home territory, it a good idea to put a limit on the military and divert fund to education. Don’t Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good