jonhendry

joined 1 year ago
[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That seems like an inefficient use of space if the ceiling is anything more than six feet high. If they're ten foot ceilings, then the shelves are spaced about 20 inches apart, which is rather larger than typical books. No wonder there are multiple layers on some shelves and books overflowing onto other surfaces.

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 3 points 1 year ago

Fred Clark (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/) recently drew attention to John Hagee, a Texas preacher who's been preaching about the imminent Rapture since the 1980s. His church recently spent millions of dollars to start a K-12 school. Which really isn't consistent behavior if you really believe the Rapture is imminent.

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There's a SCOTUS case that says the government only has to pay a fair market value, not the "inflated by the government's need for the property" value. In the case a guy had bought a tugboat and fixed it up quite a bit. When WW2 started the government sought to buy it, and he insisted on a price well above the cost of the boat and the improvements, arguing that WW2 had increased demand so he should get a higher price.

So Musk would get a lot, but maybe not as much you'd think.

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 2 points 1 year ago

I'd think being there to take a photo of her mid-Caesarian section would have convinced him otherwise.

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing about AI designing and building robots is that making physical things is vastly more expensive than pooping out six-fingered portrait jpegs. All that trial-and-error learning would not come cheap. Even if the AI were controlling CNC machining centers.

There's no guarantee that the AI would have access to enough parts and materials to be able to be trained to a level of sufficient competence.

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 5 points 1 year ago

Not like that.

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 3 points 1 year ago

Are we sure it isn't Musk behind the "AI"?

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 3 points 1 year ago

Someone please set up a “GrimesHouseboatAI” account with appropriate tweets, sort of Marvin the Android if he were stuck in a Minneapolis impound yard for 15 years, and also dumb.

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 7 points 1 year ago

Good lord I can't imagine learning about things on Facebook.

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's probably more true if you include disabilities that you may not be considering. Acquired hearing loss, blindness due to retinitis pigmentosa, chronic back pain, etc. I find it very hard to believe that a person who lost their vision in an industrial accident wouldn't leap at a chance to have their vision back. And obviously not all policies to reduce the incidence of disabilities are about eugenics. OSHA isn't a eugenics program. Vitamin K shots and eye ointment for newborns reduce disability without being eugenics. I assume even blind disability activists don't think babies should be put at risk of easily avoidable blindness.

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 5 points 1 year ago

I suspect that was simply Singer's nod to religious opposition to voluntary contraception and he wasn't necessarily suggesting that the things you list are viable options.

[–] jonhendry@awful.systems 6 points 1 year ago

Some meta-analyses do kinda have the vibe of collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps, combining weak studies and claiming a strong result. (Case in point: some of the bogus studies of ivermectin etc for covid). Not all of them, but if you're not working in a field (and good at evaluating methods etc) you probably should wait for someone in the field to evaluate meta-analyses in the field.

view more: ‹ prev next ›