stalker6zauzich.bsky.social
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.
Charge him rent for pole and hook and line and he will feed you too, or
starve.
~The Capitalist Addendum
155 posts
98 followers
253 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Does Japan in ww2 count?
comment in response to
post
Our reach to be seen and understood took a leap with social media and now AI can return the sensation with no human connection at all.
comment in response to
post
Sharing corrected facts is not an attack. Calma
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Open attack on the 3rd branch.
comment in response to
post
Capturing people’s attention and inspiring them makes a real difference even if it’s in “a meaningless speech.” Reference to Cory Booker just breaking standing speech record in the Senate 25 hours.
comment in response to
post
She replied.🍿
comment in response to
post
100% yes
comment in response to
post
Yea. They will switch it to "anyone was eligible" by the time they actually give the money away.
comment in response to
post
"you're telling me about it for the first time"
an old saw
comment in response to
post
It’s a series. There are like 6.
comment in response to
post
Calibrating portfolio earnings each year to max our ACA subsidy helped us afford better health insurance than we would have spent on otherwise. We're covered by full time work again but it was nice to keep high levels of protection during the gap years (new family) at a price that allowed vacations.
comment in response to
post
Shouldn’t you be long-form handwritten journaling?
comment in response to
post
Winning the internal fight among (D) about how to fight Trump and Musk it’s own struggle. The appeasers won this round and I won’t argue it was not by betrayal. I believe there *are* senators on our side of it, though. Calling them performative makes our side weaker and the internal fight harder.
comment in response to
post
It’s a bad plan that prioritizes shaping the public’s perception and how the competing narratives will be spun rather than fighting to actually stop what Trump and Musk are actually doing. I agree resistance should be total, not only when it will make (D) look a certain way.
comment in response to
post
Wasn’t it a victory in the house when (R) were unable to get their spending cut bill passed and had to resort to this CR instead? Trump is presiding over a shit show and having to own it spun as necessary “detox”. The logic is not to give the out of blaming coming misery on a shutdown instead.
comment in response to
post
Filibustering a CR is not the same as blocking a new (R) spending plan. Senate Dems may be more girded to fight over material changes rather than obstructing a continuation of the status quo. The details are more complex and nuanced but this is the gist, I hope.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
"But they might not be able to stop us."
comment in response to
post
Appetizer
comment in response to
post
YOU are the one who needs to act. Stop talking!
comment in response to
post
Facts are like mosquitos against narrative flow.
comment in response to
post
I, too, will be looking to buy Canadian for some upcoming booze purchases here in the USA. Glad to send a little extra money to the American Treasury to help with our budget deficit.
comment in response to
post
I don't know if I would characterise it as "Full Access" if they can only read without changing anything. They passed all the checks and got the clearances and were hired by the department. It's still a bad path to be on but it's not all out illegal capitulation like it could have been. I hold hope.
comment in response to
post
Someone knows. Just not you.
comment in response to
post
Is it me or does it look like shareholder value for buying government favor is like, way cheap for the return you get? It seems so important now in a way I hadn't thought of before.
comment in response to
post
It's not all smoke and mirrors. There is fire. Will Nvidia see diminished demand from the ability to do more with less chips or is the ceiling high enough that demand remains pedal to the metal regardless? What can we do with less is a different path/gear of innovation than what can we do with more.
comment in response to
post
Yes I feel like we already got mad about this when they (someone else?) did this for other users about a different named thing at the request of another government.
comment in response to
post
I checked how many of the justices who ruled that way are still on the court.
comment in response to
post
The legislature and courts will fold and there is nothing we can do about it. (dooming)
comment in response to
post
Synthesis and summary but you can't trust it to find and judge and retrieve the information itself. Person on a search engine may just always be better for this.
comment in response to
post
I guess not. The opening statement set up the subsequent description of something chatGPT is bad at as a shortcoming in its usefulness that needed to be remedied. I was putting forward that this may not and may never be a tool appropriate task, even if it seems like it should be or we wish it was.
comment in response to
post
Not chatGPT specifically. Generally, the technology of AI models in the development race currently. chatGPT being useful or not at one thing or another is one tree in the forest. People are trying to do things with them. Good uses are being found. If it can't do what you wish, yet, then make it.
comment in response to
post
The highest use case I hear is to have it write computer code. That what it gets wrong there can be found and corrected by a coder much more efficiently that if they had to write all the code themselves from scratch. Not a retrieval of facts but a constructive act with myriad "correct" solutions.
comment in response to
post
Don't use it for that. Figuring out what these things are good at and what they are not is part of learning to use these new methods. Maybe a model could be trained to be good at that task or maybe not.
comment in response to
post
The pivot away when it didn’t catch on was pretty good though. He might be surprised to not come away as clean from what he’s stepping in now.
comment in response to
post
"No actual applications" is a _wild_ fling of spaghetti.
comment in response to
post
How specific/repurposable is this stuff? Can a company like Microsoft easily reallocate the infrastructure into their regular cloud computing offerings if the "AI" use case fizzles out? CEO described his 80 billion commitment to Stargate as "building out Azure" which they are already doing anyway.
comment in response to
post
I certainly see the obvious and direct interpretation where what he says means what you say it does. I just don't think that's what he means even if that's a coherent interpretation of what he said.
comment in response to
post
I don't think he means the government will own it when he talks about who would get the 50%. My read is he means an undetermined someone who gets the stake as part of, and so attributable to "The United States" without it being the literal government. If Zuc gets 50% then by extension, America does.
comment in response to
post
The humanoid robot digging with a shovel, of intellectual labor. A new tool in narrow fields like phasing out the slide rule. Overbuilding as was fiber. Have they've gone enough past ham already for it to be that level fall from here or must they blow much more before the fever breaks to measure up?
comment in response to
post
His wrist angles in and the thumb is cocked. Two tenths deduction.
comment in response to
post
Dito. "The United States" is the collective idea. A banner holder that any potential deal-getter becomes an extension of. Is there a "Do you mean taxpayer owned?" question I didn't find? Seems his typical over-broad "like I'm a 5 year old" explanation/understanding.☮️
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4xm...
comment in response to
post
So I found this from a two days ago rally. Trump talks about a Tic-Tok deal with "The United States" and I take it to mean the broad collective idea of The United States, people companies, territory, all together. Not a call for government ownership of Tic-Tok.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRXR...
comment in response to
post
What I heard did sound like he was suggesting nationalisation & it struck me at the time that he didn't know what he was saying. American ownership and owned by America must be interchangeable in his mind and/or it was rhetorical to directly counter/mirror the "Tik-Tok is owned by China" narrative.
comment in response to
post
I thought Trump was being sloppy/ignorant with his language rather than calling for nationalisation.
comment in response to
post
Don’t let the name still on the paper fool you.
comment in response to
post
If only. He just needs backing of the few hundred people in the DNC. Regular people don't matter.