Yes, but it’s also the most logical place. What other activity do you dedicate so much time to? Maybe sleeping but it’s hard to build a community around that.

I’m starting to understand that many people never felt the sense of community, in the workplace or otherwise. Yes it’s possible.

The trick is that it doesn’t depend on the company, it depends on the people. Last time it happened to me, we pretty much all quit together because we were frustrated at the company but kept being friends afterwards.

Continue the war. Doesn’t matter too much when and against who. Constant war is the only thing keeping Netanyahu in power. They’re going to keep doing it as long as they can.

BRICSV? VBRICS? BRVICS?

A chess-specific algorithm beat a language model at chess. Shocking!

Try training a chess model. Actually I think it’s already been done, machines have been consistently better at chess than humans for a while now.

I disagree with the conclusion of the article, although the contents do touch on some important points.

The article itself claims there aren’t enough resources for everyone to live a “developed country lifestyle”, which is connected to higher emissions per capita.
One way forward is to reduce the consumption. But the other way is to reduce the population so there is enough for everyone to be at least somewhat wasteful. Imo, the best would be both.

We do need to reduce the human population. About 4-5 billion would be ideal.
On the negative side, we don’t know how to handle this situation of declining population. The entire human history is one of non-stop growth interrupted only by catastrophic pandemics, which were the only way the population dropped so far.

Musk is a narcissist who got very lucky in life. But still he is a human, bad human but relatable in the sense you understand his flaws.

Thiel is something else. Sociopath I guess. Dude is not human and doesn’t function according to any understandable human psychology

That’s true. My argument is that before, when people had more children, they didn’t care about bringing them into a bad world. Even 100 years ago it was expected some of your children will die.

Now, children dying is not a nice thing. Luckily we solved it and these days if you behave like our ancestors you will have too many children for society to be sustainable.

But if you’re in a situation where there are too few children for a sustainable society, encouraging risk would help.

All being said, I actually believe we need to reduce the human population. But we don’t know how to handle a sudden decline, or if we can level it out later. So a gradual decrease would be preferable.

I’m noticing a pattern here. Not just about Japanese society but many others as well.

It’s never “we want to have a child so we will”
It’s always “this is a series of rules, procedures and conditions to fulfill before you can have a child”

Finally, a good use case for AI

It took much longer than it should have.

One of the greatest successes of Netanyahu (and catastrophic failing of pro-Gaza activists who accepted the narrative) is to equalize “support for Israel existing” and “support for genocide”.

Gig economy coming to disrupt the terrorism market

I’m always surprised how many employees these companies have. 18.400?

Working in a large software company myself I shouldn’t be surprised, the level of inefficiency is amazing. I’ve seen less inertia in government agencies. Dilbert comics were supposed to be an exaggeration, they’re not.