jj4211

@jj4211@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Stack Overflow bans users en masse for rebelling against OpenAI partnership — users banned for deleting answers to prevent them being used to train ChatGPT⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Maybe, but I wouldn’t say it’s really excellent.

  It was basically helping people deal with ancient browsers (particularly IE6) and a javascript runtime bereft of convenience features, at a cost of some syntactic awkwardness and performance.

  If you are targeting ES2020 and above, as is widely considered a reasonable requirement, you pretty much have the stuff that jQuery brings to the table, but built in without additional download and without an abstraction that costs some cycles.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Stack Overflow bans users en masse for rebelling against OpenAI partnership — users banned for deleting answers to prevent them being used to train ChatGPT⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Nice try, ChatGPT

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If somebody spends the whole day watching fox or religious propaganda, gets worked up and all he can think of is owning a liberal or converting an unbeliever, is this person a victim or just gullible?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Don’t know that I’d characterize it as being “victims”, their media outlets have chosen to fuel anxiety and anger that was already there.

  The media is culpable for pouring fuel on the fire, but the fire was already there. They are emboldened to be loud since they find such loud agreement from media and online, but they already were thinking the same basic things.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Republicans are pulling out all the stops to reverse EV adoption⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  They wouldn’t care if they knew you only were talking about cities they don’t go to.

  But they do care and fight you because they think you mean their life. This means they vote against your interests because they think their interests are threatened, even if they aren’t.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Republicans are pulling out all the stops to reverse EV adoption⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure, and I’ve seen some good projects, and less than good projects.

  In my city, they took a street and closed it and redid it as pedestrians only. Worked great, more foot traffic going from any establishment to any other, and car people only had to walk an extra block or two to get to things.

  There’s a section where they made a highly walkable environment from scratch, with car access basically through entering a big mostly underground parking deck, so the surface was reasonably car free.

  On the flip side, the city loved these efforts so much they mandated mixed use zoning for all new construction. And the three big projects I’ve seen play out under this new scheme all followed the same recipe: -Proposal with 90% residential, and 10% “retail/commercial” -The proposal is phased, with hyper detailed residential plans and a vague box for the “retail/commercial” phase “to come later” -The residential is built, and then the company withdraws their plan for further development.

  One that did go in for the true mixed use early on suffered because no commercial tenant would tolerate streetside only parking (which was effectively part of the deal, given how the regulations were written parking lots/decks were not viable for these “walkable neighborhoods” when they could just have a parking lot or deck nearby by setting up their business somewhere else)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Republicans are pulling out all the stops to reverse EV adoption⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure, and I can believe it, but the rhetoric is not so well targeted or scoped.

  “we move away from car-[dependence], though.”

  Is not going to be seen with the implied nuance by a large chunk of potential audience, and as stated may create opponents out of folks that really wouldn’t care at all either way.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Republicans are pulling out all the stops to reverse EV adoption⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure, but be aware that your messaging isn’t so targeted. The messaging is “fuck cars” not “our dense cities need to be more walkable and transit”. In this very thread it’s “we shouldn’t do anything for EVs, cars aren’t the answer anyway, we need to be ditching cars”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Republicans are pulling out all the stops to reverse EV adoption⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Question is what is the population density where you live?

  If it’s over 1,500 people a square mile, I get it. Cars suck and they screw things up for you while making relatively little sense. Any mass transit can be reasonably highly utilized with that volume of people. Meanwhile out-of-towners with their cars really screw with your day to day life.

  But for places that are, say, 200 people a square mile, cars are about the only way things can work. So hardcore “we shouldn’t have cars” rhetoric is going to alienate a whole bunch of people, for good reason.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Republicans are pulling out all the stops to reverse EV adoption⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Realistically, your choices aren’t “EVs or mass transit”, your choice is “EVs or Gas cars”.

  Incidentally, your gripes apply to high density population areas, where busloads of people want to go from the same point A to the same point B at the same time, and cars do not make sense. That flips when you get to a more distributed population, where a hypothetical bus would run its route empty or with 2 or 3 passengers most of the time, in which case the car is actually “greener” because it’s not making empty trips and it uses less energy to move 2-3 people.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Republicans are pulling out all the stops to reverse EV adoption⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  That argument can be made about the tax incentives.

  However, regulations about emissions are intrinsically something we want, and we shouldn’t hold back on that just because gas cars can’t get to the level of emissions we need.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Tesla to lay off everyone working on Superchargers, new vehicles⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  True, at some point investors switch from “good, they are improving efficiency” or “good, they are making way for higher quality hires” to “uhh, is there a problem? Are you going to keep going and risk going under some unknown critical threshold that will impact the health of your business?”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Tesla to lay off everyone working on Superchargers, new vehicles⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Point remains you roll off the lot with a car that you paid a lot of money for and a lot of that is for that fresh new battery. Then you promptly go out and maybe get a pack with over a thousand cycles on it. Doesn’t matter how well the charge controlling and battery care is, batteries do wear out, and if you paid for the battery, it’s a raw deal that you likely get stuck with an older battery.

  Question is what happens if your battery fails, is the swap station going to happily come out and give you a new battery? This might work if the battery is a lease, but that changes the dynamics of the initial purchase significantly.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Tesla to lay off everyone working on Superchargers, new vehicles⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Self fulfilling prophecy that the company seems to have stopped doing stuff. He found it boring and it is failing.

  Their rare “completed” projects are utter embarrassments.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Tesla to lay off everyone working on Superchargers, new vehicles⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, not necessarily.

  Short term, they dramatically increased access to credible fast charging.

  Longer term, near as I can tell, third party NACS fast charging will commence. So while this may be a disaster for Tesla and the Tesla charging network per se, long term it has room for another company to come along and displace Tesla.

  If such a company were looking for a team to drive such an initiative, it seems we all know where to find one now…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Rabbit R1 is Just an Android App⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  One amendment, I’d say it’s because existing phones won’t let an app have access to listening for a wake word or phrase, and a phone hard codes that to the phone vendor code. Having passive access to microphone and camera and activating and showing what they want to the screen without contending with a platform lock screen that won’t play ball with them, that sort of thing. “AI” access wasn’t really going to be the challenge.

  It’s not that they didn’t run on existing phones, I could see that, I find it more stupid that they stopped short of just making their device a phone capable of traditional interaction. As it stands it’s going to be a subset of capability of phones coming out this year that will likely offer similar “AI” features while also continuing to support traditional hand held usage. If they didn’t want to sign up for all that, they probably could have teamed up with someone like Motorola, who might be hungry enough to let Rabbit do their thing on a Moto G variant or something.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Rabbit R1 is Just an Android App⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  They may be compelled to release any driver code associated, however firmware is not covered by relation to kernel. Linux runs on mostly proprietary firmware. The “linux-firmware” package in many distributions that contains hot plug firmware is mostly proprietary blobs.

  That said I doubt they had much significant firmware work, it may just be logo and some tweaked configuration from their SoC vendor. They likely had to modify AOSP a bit more to allow their launcher unfettered access to the device in ways not modeled by standard AOSP, but that’s user space that isn’t GPL.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Thomas Edison was the Elon musk of his era⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, there were a few people who knew better that were telling everyone, but no one listened and everyone in the world was lining up to kids his ass. Putting him in various popular movies and shows as the greatest luminary of our time. While people who knew him were writing credible reports that he is just a very lucky douche who is also a giant megalomanic.

  Can’t imagine being his first wife and having her experiences and sharing those experiences and the world seeming to gaslight her that he’s actually a brilliant flawless man.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Thomas Edison was the Elon musk of his era⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Note that the lawsuit didn’t “determine”, it was settled out of court, so there was no determination of fact.

  Instead the parties agreed to let Musk call himself a founder for undisclosed terms. Musk basically paid for people to let him use that title as part of the settlement.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Thomas Edison was the Elon musk of his era⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Perhaps, but the point stands that the specific thing called “Tesla” was founded by these guys, and Musk went through quite some headaches to be retconned as a founder of that thing, so it’s on point to drive it home that he wasn’t even that.

  Fair point that “Tesla” isn’t really the great brains behind the original core tech, but that’s not the feather in the cap that Musk was going for, so it’s a bit moot toward the end of undermining his status of “founder” of Tesla.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Tesla to lay off everyone working on Superchargers, new vehicles⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  They do, to a point.

  If it’s a “trim” that is a vague percentage without any standout cuts in recognized people or groups, then good. If there are recognized names or groups, but they are people associated with widely known failures, like a team whose sole responsibility is a proven financial failure, good or even better. If you have people caught up in it who are well recognized for critical successes, then the investors won’t be so bullish.

  Here we see two groups responsible seen as responsible for the key success factors of Tesla obliterated, with very little external signs of why this could be a rational move. The other layoffs might have been viewed well, even if some of them were also bad news, but I think these two will be viewed as bad news.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨As a long-time user hearing YouTube wants to play ads when I pause a video⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Number of ads does not necessarily scale linearly to amount of income. If the ads alienate viewers, then they become worth less. I know I personally watch less when they started sometimes subjecting me to 30 seconds of unskippable ads to watch a 90 second video. Recently, I hit “skip ad” and it took me to another ad, which made me less likely. The other day whole watching a video someone told me to watch, I paused to look at some text. After a few moments it started rolling an ad while I was trying to read the text. The more this happens, the less likely I am to watch. Wild be interesting to know statistics on viewership versus more obnoxious ad behavior, but there’s likely at least some decline in per ad avenue versus number of ads crammed in the face of viewers.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is there a more politically and ideologically diverse alternative for Lemmy?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  While I see a lot of posts that would have this problem, at least the discussion are a bit more balanced compared to when the same stuff would happen on Reddit. So for example fuck cars is about the same in terms of posts, but here I tend to see a bit more back and forth and a balanced perspective on how the comments are up voted. On Reddit, any comment vaguely questioning the circle jerk will be down voted into oblivion and receive nothing but angry replies.

  The amount of apolitical posts is a bit disappointing though.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But how would they be able to live on that?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Okay but if you take out a loan then you need to repay the loan with income which is taxed, so…

  Part of the problem is there are shell games around the repayment. I thought this could be handled by any use of the stock as collateral should count as a ‘sale’ for tax purposes, and any taxes on those proceeds that would be “double taxed” as folks are so afraid of can be offset by tax credits if the loan is ‘properly’ repaid in a normal way. So if you loan but repay normally, ok, you gave the government a ‘0% loan’, but you are still “fairly” taxed other than that, and the 0% loan is a small price to pay for access to your wealth.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But how would they be able to live on that?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m saying that we already have the concept of small tax rates against unrealized “gains” for the common folk, so it’s not crazy to think that unrealized gains for the rich folk could be some sort of fair game, on a roughly analogous scale. Mostly the same concerns about unrealized stock value apply to real estate property. The exceptions that I can conceive of would be:

  • Housing already has the typical property tax priced in. So whatever the effects of the wealth tax would be, it would be novel and thus some sort of adjustment would occur.

  • Housing has some intrinsic use and is not just a financial vehicle. People want to be in a house and most don’t even want to think of it as an ‘asset’ if they don’t have to. So one’s desire to reside in a primary residence is not dissuaded if you had reason to think you could “earn more” elsewhere. Stock is a more purely speculative financial instrument, so behaviors could be different. If a 3% tax across the board were levied, suddenly the effect is that investment vehicle is handicapped by 3%. So the average S&P return is 10% today, and thus would be effectively 7%, which might trigger some moves. Or if you say ‘3% over 10m’, then you get a shift where relatively less moneyed investors become an advantaged class, which might be interesting.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But how would they be able to live on that?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  At some scale it isn’t but at some scale it is. If you are saying no one would give musk 240 billion actual dollars for all his shares, you are right. However he could definitely get a million dollars for the 1/240000 of his stock. Hence why any wealth tax assessed against stock needs to be a low percentage.

  The total valuation of the s&p 500 is way way over the number of dollars that “actually exist”, so it’s obviously not able to be made into real liquid in entirety, yet plenty of people do make money on the subset that trades.

  Same thing can be said of houses, but we seem to find it normal to tax based on the extrapolated value anyway.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But how would they be able to live on that?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Depends on the structure. If it’s 3% on value over 5 million, then the bottom 95% will not even have a dent. If it is paid by even average retirement funds, but funds more expensive Medicaid or your kids college education, you still win. It all depends on the details.

  I suppose there might be some sell off to cover the tax bills if the wealthy, but it probably wouldn’t shake the markets too much.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But how would they be able to live on that?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Speaking of that house to buy, I’m getting taxed on my “unrealized gains” in my home value being estimated higher, despite our being where I live and not really primarily intended as an “investment vehicle”.

  So if property tax can apply to stuff I’m not using as “money”, then I have a hard time objecting to the same general principle applied to stocks. The same arguments that can be made about stocks can apply to any property tax.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But how would they be able to live on that?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Then the shares would be capital assets and count. Yes the company’s assets count (real estate, and such,) but a big part of the wealth of the head of a publicly traded company is the value of the “company” apart from actual assets. This part of a private company as far as I know frequently “doesn’t exist”. At least not in a way that figures into “net worth” of the owner. Valuation is based on extrapolation of observed shares of company being transacted, if you have sole ownership, there’s no market rate to use for accounting.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But how would they be able to live on that?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, sure. Just have to accurately describe what to stop. Usually calls to action don’t understand the actual scheme in play, so folks ask for things that either don’t make sense or already exist. Within that context hard to fight when you don’t even know what to fight

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But how would they be able to live on that?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, maybe not the laughing, but if the wealthy can play in the nuance more confidently and accurately, even if you are right broadly you’ll have a more uphill battle trying to win. If they point to the rhetoric and are and to highlight incorrect details, they say “see, they just don’t understand things, so clearly ignore them”. Or if you “win” they play in the nuance to stack the deck in a different way so they win again, despite you ostensibly getting what you drive for.

  However if you have on point critiques and suggestions to consider, maybe it’s easier to drive for a system that reigns then in better, and is less likely to just let them move the loopholes.

  As SunTzu wrote: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.