Indeed. There is a hierarchy.
Commie blocks are better than tents.
But proper social housing is better than commie blocks.
And proper social housing mixed with middle class owner-occupied housing in the same neighborhoods and even within the same buildings is the best.
Indeed, but the way the math for expansion works is that there is something called a Hubble horizon and that makes it impossible to ever reach the edge, since it is moving away from us faster than light. (The limit doesn't apply to the expansion of space-time).
Quite a nifty solution by the Supreme Programmer to avoid us hitting the limits of the simulation. I couldn't have designed it better.
Bibi is hoping the hostages all die soon in a way that the blame isn't put on him.
Then he can proceed with his final solution.
Zionists really are the Nazi's of our time.
If that email needs to go to a client or stakeholder, then our culture won't accept just the prompt.
Where it really shines is translation, transcription and coding.
Programmers can easily double their productivity and increase the quality of their code, tests and documentation while reducing bugs.
Translation is basically perfect. Human translators aren't needed. At most they can review, but it's basically errorless, so they won't really change the outcome.
Transcribing meetings also works very well. No typos or grammar errors, only sometimes issues with acronyms and technical terms, but those are easy to spot and correct.
It is definitely here to stay, but the hype of AGI being just around the corner is definitely not believable. And a lot of the billions being invested in AI will never return a profit.
AI is already a commodity. People will be paying $10/month at max for general AI. Whether Gemini, Apple Intelligence, Llama, ChatGPT, copilot or Deepseek. People will just have one cheap plan that covers anything an ordinary person would need. Most people might even limit themselves to free plans supported by advertisements.
These companies aren't going to be able to extract revenues in the $20-$100/month from the general population, which is what they need to recoup their investments.
Specialized implementations for law firms, medical field, etc will be able to charge more per seat, but their user base will be small. And even they will face stiff competition.
I do believe AI can mostly solve quite a few of the problems of an aging society, by making the smaller pool of workers significantly more productive. But it will not be able to fully replace humans any time soon.
It's kinda like email or the web. You can make money using these technologies, but by itself it's not a big money maker.
I fully agree.
Also, one thing that Unions always have trouble with is that there is no individual benefit to joining a union, only a cost, so you get a prisoners dilemma type situation.
Even in Scandinavian countries, union membership is on the decline.
Personally, I think the solution should be that union dues are paid by a small tax, making it 'free' to join a union. And the unions can provide free benefits to their members, such as legal advice and representation. This will make it attractive to join a union.
I agree. Very much like Reddit in the early days.
Also, the level of civility and intellect in the comments is relatively high.
Also, the tradition is the exact opposite as I understand.
In Finland they like to be alone and be left alone, so you don't just intrude on someone if they are in self-isolation.
Correct.
It's actually a smart move.
The dumb money are those pouring hundreds of billions into the AI hype. This is .com bubble on steroids.
And sure, AI obviously is becoming an important market, but it will not be the current leaders who will dominate the tech. Like the internet, it's just too easy to catch up for competitors. Pouring $100B into AI today will only mean you lose out to the $1B startup in 2 years. The incumbents will go broke.
Wero will become the replacement over time.
But for now, you're stuck with Visa and Mastercard if your country doesn't have a local alternative.
Just get the cheapest option.
Perhaps, but he does have a point.
Boycotts, protests, press articles and just public opinion in general used to be powerful tools to influence companies and politicians.
But they have lost their effectiveness, because companies and politicians have figured out ways to make themselves immune to boycotts and protests.
They have engineered society to make us all dependent and confused.
It used to be, every product in the supermarket had a smallish company behind it, and that company was very sensitive to public opinion. There was always competition ready to steal market share.
Now all the brands are just labels for a few giant corporations. You simply can't boycott them. If one brand becomes the target of a boycott, a different brand from the same or another multinational will get the money, perhaps through a store brand.
Yeah, I think their CEO might have QNAP stock or something.
It's hilarious how dumb this is.