You're saying that Trump and company are trying to get the people of color who don't pay their child support to not leave the country. I'm not sure what the problem is. Can you explain it further?
I'm also curious why you think it is only targeting people of color and not people of white
> whoever figures out how to give authentic online experiences is going to be successful
The problem is, there is fundamentally no way to scale this.
The only way to give authentic human interaction with like-minded individuals is to connect real humans to other real humans who share interests. And as we've already seen over the first few ages of the Internet, once such a community scales past a certain size, it a) ceases to be a place where people can come to chat, discuss, and hang out with their interest-sharing friends, because there are just too many people for one person to know, and b) becomes a target for profit-minded interests who will cheerfully eviscerate any authenticity and connection the community brought if it will make them a small profit before the community crumbles and collapses.
So anyone trying to "give authentic online experiences" as a business model is going to have to accept that they are going to be, at best, a small, modestly profitable company. And given the state of things today, I very much doubt that this is in the cards.
Scaling is a problem. But my mind keeps running in circles as to how you could do this. Maybe organically through a "web of trust" like gpg. Bob trusts Alice --> Alice trusts John, so Bob automatically trusts John. But then the complexity would kill it just like gpg and you would be sitting alone in your group chat. <grin>
Maybe if Alice gets out of line and starts trusting obvious bot accounts you can untrust her and automatically would remove any replies from the people she trusts.
I think if there's a way to make it work, it would have to involve restricting the sizes of individual communities—probably with a "soft limit" and a "hard limit". Above the "soft limit", people can't join independently, but people can still be invited by friends; above the "hard limit," people can't join at all.
Based on my understanding of current research on the topic, I'd say to put the "hard limit" at about 150 members, and the "soft limit" at somewhere between 75 and 100 (because people will really want to bring in their friends; in fact, that's a major part of the point, and an unqualified positive for the community!).
I can also say from my own experience of running a small browser-based game that is almost 100% driven by player-to-player interaction, you need a critical mass of people interested in active discussion to keep such a group going, but if you have too many the volume of messages becomes offputting and it's hard for new members to feel comfortable speaking up. ...And that it's really, really easy for small, vocal, aggressive cliques of people within a given group to ruin things for the rest.
> They're not going to dredge up decade old institutional knowledge
Worse—they'll get the people who hold that knowledge laid off, and at least 50% of the institutional knowledge won't be documented anywhere that even could be fed to the LLM.
If this was true years ago, it is not anymore. There are plenty of stories, and posts, about climate change.
And over the...I dunno, something like 9 years? I've been here, I have observed a distinct but gradual shift to the left in the overall tenor of conversation. Things do change, even here.
> it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population
Ah, right: it's a small percentage of the population, so we should just let them die, "and decrease the surplus population", right?
This kind of callousness is one of the biggest problem with the tech industry today. We learned to think in numbers, and some of us never learned to think about the people behind those numbers.
Yes, there are some kinds of problem where you really have to think about the numbers, and not the people, because if you try to save everyone you will end up saving no one.
This is not one of those.
The people who can move now, without financial hardship, get to make their own choices about when and whether to get out. The people we, as a society, should be thinking about are the people who cannot get out—either without financial ruination, or at all—because they are the ones we as a society must help.
Tragically, given the state of America today, we aren't likely to help them. And many of them are likely to die, whether by drowning when the next Hurricane Katrina inundates New Orleans, or by slow starvation and disease when they and everyone else in their community and support network are left homeless.
> The people who can move now, without financial hardship, get to make their own choices about when and whether to get out. The people we, as a society, should be thinking about are the people who cannot get out—either without financial ruination, or at all—because they are the ones we as a society must help.
This is exactly the problematic thinking I’m talking about. Your obsession with using society to help those whose problems are the most intractable leads you to conclude to majority should be left “to make their own choices.”
But the most effective use of social action is helping the majority. They can benefit from social organization and their problems are tractable. Here, leaving the majority to its own devices is going to cause the most damage in the long run. Society should push them to make good choices and relocate in an orderly manner while there’s time.
We don't need them to "leave now." We don't need them to move to California. We need them to move to Baton Rogue over a period of decades. Under a high emissions scenario, sea level is projected to rise 6 feet by 2100. New Orleans is on average 1-2 feet below sea level (up to 10 feet). Baton Rouge is 60 feet above sea level. The average elevation of the state is 100 feet.
In any given year, 15% of the population moves, and 40% of them move to a different county. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/why-people-mo.... It's insane to say that most people wouldn't be able to make a once-in-a-lifetime move just a couple of towns over sometime over the next few decades.
Baton Rouge is partially on a bluff. But didn't you see the 7m map? The coastline will be lapping at St. George, southern EBR Parish along Burbank Road and the south part of LSU campus at that point.
This is true. It is also true that waiting until things bottom out will make things even worse. It will be more expensive and options will be more limited.
There will need to be a federal bailout to relocate everyone who needs help. The government should also probably announce a policy that there will be no future disaster relief that involves rebuilding, only relocating.
New Orleans will be the first, but not the last American city to collapse. Miami is probably next. Salt Lake City could very well run out of water, nevermind the increasingly toxic lakebed. Phoenix too. In the next hundred years people are going to learn why environmentalists use the word "sustainability" so much.
Global warming increases evaporation and consequently increase global rainfall. Although it is true that it can shift the location of rainy spots and dry spots, unless you have some magic way to predict the locations they will shift to, I'm going to assume Phoenix's access to water is going to increase because it seems extremely unlikely to me that the entire watershed of the Colorado River (encompassing most of the American part of the Rockies probably) will become dryer on average.
You're demonstrating the point I'm afraid. Rather than think of anything which can help 90%, you obsess on calling the people who want to save 90% of the people evil instead of thinking of anything to reduce the 10% further.
I just tried it on their website, using the desktop browser, and the experience is absolutely OK: you just get the menu as in any web app, and you can close it to go back, etc. Just an old-school page which is blazing fast ... because it is an old-school page. It renders faster than a typical animation to open a sidebar.
But you don't need to open a menu to navigate to another page on an old school web page. Web pages in the 00s just showed you links to other parts of the website on a navbar that is always there. I agree this website is optimized for phones and works poorly on desktop — there is absolutely no reason to hide your links behind a burger menu when I have more than enough pixels on my monitor for all your links.
...because the opening line of the blog post says he's been "building websites with LLMs", and then attempts to cutely redefine that abbreviation as "Lots of Little htMl pages" in a parenthetical.
It's, um. Not the best kind of communication, and very easily leads to this kind of misunderstanding.
...But what percentage of Swedes is that? vs the vast majority of working-class Americans.
Remember, outside of its few biggest and wealthiest cities, the US just does not have decent, reliable public transport, and most places don't have any.
And how many Americans live in places without any public transport?
As a European I spend some time in LA and Las Vegas and while not optimal I could get everywhere without a car. I could even do a day-trip to Bakersfield by bus.
Your anecdata to this one time you took a trip to California doesn’t help.
You can just look at % of urban residents that use transit, which is lower in US than any western country. Clearly transit isn’t built or available in a sufficient way to majority of people
In addition to the human cost that others mention, the big problem is that in our current system, this doesn't lead to fresh blood coming in and being able to compete on an even footing: it leads to the giant incumbents schlorping up the pieces and becoming even bigger and stronger.
Your statement might be true in a system with healthy safeguards ands competition, but that isn't the system we have in the real world today.
It's to punish poor, especially nonwhite, people and make it hard for them to escape the oppression of the Trump regime.
reply