As they saying goes, you have to dodge the trap every time, they only have to get you once. Sooner or later we all will slip up if we’re subjected to endless con attempts.
You can for the most part evaluate intent based on actions. There are some actions which can have multiple possible intents behind them, where things get trickier. But in most situations, there is one primary consequence of something, and the action needs to be taken with deliberation, hence you can state with high certainty what the intention was, based purely on what was done. Consversely, if a person has complete freedom to complete some action, but chooses not to, then we can say their intention wasn't to do that thing.
I think I read (on HN?) that the number 5 engine shutdown saved the spacecraft and it's glazed over in the movie. I think they really didn't pay a lot of attention to it but if it didn't shut off it had a high probability of blowing up
"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles,"
The two recent examples I can think of are the Gaza ceasefire, as well as the general concept (and not actual implementation) of re-industrializing the USA in the context of China's dominance.
Call me when the party starts. Many of the decisions this administration has made are having the opposite impact. The re-industrialization of the US (what little bit of it there is) is in spite of the trump administration, not because of it.
Well, people are still dying despite the ceasefire and the reindustrialization seems mostly to build data centers. What parts of these do you think are good?
Has there actually been a ceasefire in practice? People are still dying, guns are still being fired afaik. And the broader plan does not instill confidence with Tony Blair proposed as a technocratic leader of the area
Of course I have no sway, politically or otherwise, but I would have happily given credit to Trump where it was due if it panned out.
But Israel does not seem to have abided by the ceasefire, and the larger peace plan now feels like it's going to be stitch up for the Palestinian people.
I tried to help them steelman this but the only couple examples of good things I could come up with, I’ve not seen liberals complain about. Hm. Coming up blank.
All these come from the white house press directly which has painted them in a glowing light but it remains to be seen if they are actually good things.
The administration is crooked. Nothing they do can be trusted. Especially when they attack science and reduce funding for critical programs
After significantly more searching, you managed to cite less criticisms of Trump’s “good actions” by liberals than you managed to cite “good actions” themselves, and then to top it all off you tried to weakly justify that conclusion with some trite aphorism about individualism encompassing many outcomes.
Yes, you're right, I should google to make your arguments for you!
Listing a bunch of white house links and then 2 criticisms (edit: he got it up to about 6 criticisms of marijuana legislation, wow!) which aren't even really about the action but more about the general malfeasance of the administration is an extremely weak supporting argument behind "liberals criticize anything good Trump does the same way conservatives criticized anything good Biden did", because we can identify plentiful examples of naked hypocrisy around the criticisms of Biden - see the autopen debacle for one hilariously manufactured self-owning example.
It must really be quite trying to justify Trump's actions, I'm amazed you have failed to use any of that energy on introspection.
It's a problem how many people seemingly have broken lie detectors these days. I blame social media for this one: far too easy to find a truthy bubble that validates your beliefs.
They say much worse things about me! Donald Trump, the leader of the MAGA people, released a Christmas greeting calling me scum (https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1157772703684...) - I've never done that and would never do that to even my worst political opponents. I don't understand why people persist in drawing this false equivalence. Are you in a media bubble where you don't see the things Trump says and does?
> When our enemies say: well, we gave you the freedom of opinion back then - yeah, you gave it to us, that's in no way evidence that we should return the favor! Your stupidity shall not be contagious! That you granted it to us is evidence of how dumb you are!
Another example of leftists not understanding things that are obvious. Just because you're protesting doesn't mean you can do things that would be illegal if you weren't protesting. That I have to explain this to you is really annoying.
I was very interested to see in that rebuttal that they explicitly called out ‘datacenters in space’ as a means of ‘exporting’ solar power to the earth.
> As the Weinersmiths point out, the ease of generating solar electricity in space is foundational to space
development. They focus on the challenges in beaming power back to the Earth, but the “power” could
be returned to the Earth in other ways, such as by doing energy intensive manufacturing in space, with
the result that we do not need the power on the Earth itself. One modern idea that O’Neill did not
consider is to move server farms in space, where power is cheap and you can dump heat into space with
a black piece of metal. If this was done on a large scale, the carbon impact of data services on the Earth
would drop greatly even if power is not beamed back to the Earth. There are almost certainly other
ways we can use power in space to do things in space that benefit people on the Earth.
So the original article seems to think that cooling is a significant challenge and that solar power in space is not ‘that much’ more effective than on the earth, and the other that cooling is trivial and that solar power is easily obtained. I’m inclined to go with ‘space is hard’ as that seems to comport with my other readings, but obviously the critique of ‘a city on mars’ is advocating for space exploration and is so motivated to minimize the difficulties.
I find it hard to believe that launching and operating data centers in space would turn out to be cheaper than solar, wind, and batteries down here on the ground.
From the rebuttal: "We are at the start of an upward curve of technology development that if
allowed to continue for another 50 years, will make it as easy to reach space as to fly to Australia."
People were saying that fifty years ago. Didn't happen. Go rewatch "2001".
And read NASA's "The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation". There's only so much you can do with chemical fuels.
He calls for "new paradigms of operating and new technology," which is what SpaceX delivers. On-orbit refilling gives the advantage of orbital assembly without the cost of separate spaceships. Instead of Petit's "building the pyramids" Shuttle example, SpaceX is cranking out water towers.
Certainly that's a new paradigm vs the old NASA way. Don't forget that NASA was forbidden from working on depots due to a certain senator's conflict of interest.
I guess these things aren’t literally exclusive, but it’s pretty amusing that elsewhere the rebuttal argues that we’re deep in a great stagnation which we need space exploration to pull us out of. (In the bit where he is arguing against the idea that we should wait a century and then maybe try to colonize space with greater technology)
> The slowdown in GDP growth is not mere paranoia, but an economic fact. Part of the problem with
seeing clearly the stagnation all around us is that we need to compare ourselves to what might have
been, not to the 1950s as the authors do.
I slightly have trouble believing that Mr “Stop wasting tokens by saying please to LLMs” Altman is not considering how his models can be optimized. I suppose the real question is how accurate are the utilization numbers in the article.
I stopped paying attention to any specific thing Sam Altman says a while ago. I've seen too many examples of interviews or off the cuff interactions that make me think very little of him personally.
For example, I could see him saying not to waste tokens on "please" simply because he thinks that is a stupid way to use the LLM. I.e. a judgement on anyone that would say please, not a concern over token use in his data centers.
reply