Absolutely. In my experience every AI startup is full of AI maximalists. They use AI for everything they can - in part because they believe in the hype, in part to keep up to date with model capabilities. They would absolutely go so far as to write such an important piece of text using an LLM.
To be fair many people who were still employed and making decent money for their area received stimulus checks. At that point why not treat it as fun money? After all, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. That includes luxury stores.
Others were making more on unemployment than they did while employed. They got checks on a regular basis that meaningfully increased their income level. I’m not surprised or offended if they try to temporarily increase their standard of living in frivolous ways.
tumor (noun) An abnormal growth of tissue resulting from uncontrolled, progressive multiplication of cells and serving no physiological function; a neoplasm
Multicellular life naturally exists in a well-ordered matrix according to a rough plan, not a blob in a petri dish, and when it deviates too much from that plan we have various pejorative words for it and feel various health consequences as a result of disordered growths.
Tissue culture in general is more like cancer than not like cancer, even when using "non-cancerous" cell lines. But cancerous and "immortalized" cell lines are particularly useful in cell culture because they don't snuff themselves out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortalised_cell_line
They don't say much, but my guess is the plant ingredients are there to give the white stripes. The cells are probably just a homogeneous pink mass without it.
> Since 2020 I have been speaking out against the fraudulent pandemic and the intentionally dangerous injections and my experience has been to have been censored and smeared. If you have not heard of me before, that's the reason.
One weird trick to make your insignificance seem significant!
A 45L backpack ("personal item") and a 50L duffle bag (carry-on) give you a huge amount of space sufficient for pretty much any travels on the cheapest ticket.
I do this all the time on Alaska. I have the same Peak Design travel backpack as a sibling comment mentioned, plus an ordinary overhead roller suitcase. Maybe one in five times I have to gate-check the suitcase, but the rest of the time I have ~90L of space carried on and off the plane.
How is it inconsiderate? The suitcase goes in the overhead where I'm taking up no more space than any other passenger, the backpack fits under the seat in front of me. It squashes my legs a bit, but the only person getting inconvenienced there is myself.
1. You've literally described an overhead bag that exceeds the maximum allowable carry-on dimensions at pretty much every airline, so you're taking more than your share of overhead space.
2. Flights get slowed down for everyone when people are exceeding the underseat bag size limits - sometimes the bags do get checked in the metal sizers at the gate, which causes obvious slowdowns, and 300 passengers with 45L underseat bags are going to take significantly longer to board/deplane than 300 passengers with <24L underseat bags.
3. I'm skeptical that you can actually fit a 45L bag under plane seats without ever inconveniencing other passengers. Seats are pretty tight and it's pretty easy for a larger bag to push your legs sideways so they cross the midpoint of the armrest. And various planes don't have dividers between every under-seat area, so if your bag is oversized it's easy for your bag and/or feet to spill into your neighbour's under-seat area. But maybe you're small or very disciplined and are able keep your body and belongings in your own seat area, I've (probably) never sat next to you, so can't say for sure.
Every flight I've been on this year, except one, has demanded people check bags at the gate before Group 1 even finishes boarding.
Although, this seems to apply only to hardshell wheeled cases - I walked aboard with my backpack & shoulder bag without any issues, and fit my backpack into an overhead compartment and shoulder bag under my seat with no problems.
But next time, I may try to pack everything into a single backpack, and re-configure things once I'm in my seat so I have easy access to a smaller subset of stuff in my shoulderbag instead.
> Every flight I've been on this year, except one, has demanded people check bags at the gate before Group 1 even finishes boarding.
I don't think this is that unreasonable. Gate staff can look around and count how many bags people have, and they know how much space is in the overhead bins. Not to mention that nearly every flight will run out of overhead space, so they might as well start demanding people check bags sooner rather than later.
Though the overhead bin space probably wouldn't be as bad if airlines were better about enforcing size limits. So often, a roller bag is just an inch or two too tall, so has to be placed lengthwise in the overhead bin, making it take up space that could have fit 2-3 bags.
If I see that happening and I'm traveling light enough, I've merged my backpack into my duffle bag so that I have one single "personal item" for under the seat in front of me. Nobody ever seems to care that it doesn't cleanly fit.
But jeez, forcing check-ins during Group 1 is worse than I've ever seen it. I guess it's more and more popular to use two hard-shell carry-ons and put them into the overhead compartment. And I guess the airline just sees it as an incentive for you to buy a more expensive seat.
This is a good move anyway, as the overhead bins fill rapidly but you can always count on your under-seat space. And if you do find space overhead, you have a bit more room to stretch your legs with nothing filling in that space.
I usually travel with my wife & 3 kids, and ... yeah, none of those things will work. I might still be able to fit my youngest in that backpack, I don't think she could wear one (She might be a bit too big now).
The airline charges everyone else $50 per bag, $50 for selecting your seat, gives you $10 off for traveling with a backpack in a middle seat, and pockets $90 after costs. I'm glad you feel lucky about that.
There's even gems like "no carry ons" and "no airline miles" tickets now. They cost the same as the lowest fares last year.
> The airline charges everyone else $50 per bag, $50 for selecting your seat, gives you $10 off for traveling with a backpack in a middle seat, and pockets $90 after costs
And at the end of the day, operates at a pre-tax[1] profit margin of 5% (in a good year), or 0% in a bad one.
If all airlines became altruistic non-profit entities tomorrow that only exist to serve their customers and nobody else, your ticket prices wouldn't drop more than ~$10-20.
[1] Post-tax, it's at 2.5%, but I'm not qualified to get into whether or not there's Hollywood accounting going on.
So when you create $10,000,000 of economic value you should be forced at gunpoint to stop contributing to society and creating jobs.
Jeff Bezos has created many, many millions of jobs while selling essential goods at margins sometimes below 1%. If his reward was stolen after $10m, why would he have bothered slaving away?
Aside the blatant jealousy factor, it's economic suicide and contains shadows of economic systems which have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.
It’s so disappointing to constantly see this type of evil envy driven nonsense posted on HN. Capitalism has delivered humanity unbelievable prosperity and improvements in living conditions.
Anyone finding themselves agreeing with ideas like 100% marginal taxes needs to look deep into their own soul and understand where it originates from and then go back and learn history and read authors like Hayek, Mises, and Sowell.
Sowell - “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”
And the worst part is that they don’t perceive the massive irony of posting these comments on this particular medium, the Internet, which was initially the product of a military-funded project of the most capitalistic country in history. A project which aimed to deliver a resilient communication network in case of all-out nuclear war!
Most of the people who comment like this most likely have lived since birth in a stable, western democracy with social and economic security and they don’t know anything else. They don’t know what living in a dictatorship is like, or under a fully corrupt government bureaucracy where only nepotism or favoritism gets you ahead. All they’ve known is their little, stable corner of the world, protected by the largest military and economic powerhouse in history, and they don’t appreciate it.
Hypocritically it is often extremely money focused people who put out opinions about taxing the greedy wealthy. Dressed up as caring for others but the underlying drive is selfish.
There’s not enough rich people with enough money/assets/wealth to actually make a difference and even worse nobody will be rich once you try take from them. That experiment has literally been tried dozens and dozens of times with 100% failure rate. Economies are organic organisms and your type of ideas as cyanide.
Please educate yourself and stop believing in fairy tales. Socialism is also extremely unethical and even evil from religious perspectives.
I’d be curious what educational system you went through that failed to teach the dark evil and catastrophic consequences of your 100% marginal tax rate type ideas.
> There’s not enough rich people with enough money/assets/wealth to actually make a difference
They could make a difference to some. Also consider the harm they do to the system through their politics. It's not just the wealth hoarding, it's the attacks on education and social safety nets.
I think in practice you want to take steps towards structural wealth equality. It's a problem when someone has their big ideas and step-functions a society into them. I have enough intellectual humility to admit that my conception of what policies and systems we need would most likely not work in practice. But changing a few things to be more socialist, measuring, then course correcting would be nice for once. Instead we get Capital and their purchased representation telling us what works and stepping towards what's good for them.
Also apologies but I won't read a 400 page book on your recommendation. But looking over the topics covered it seems to be about states that tried a command economy. To me a command economy is obviously foolish. How is a government, notorious a slow moving decision maker, going to replace the free market? As you said it's an organism. It's complicated with millions of actions happening in parallel. I want incentives to be changed - ideally with as few changes as possible.
> But changing a few things to be more socialist, measuring, then course correcting would be nice for once.
This is constantly happening actually and constantly failing.
> To me a command economy is obviously foolish.
And who exactly distributes or allocated your confiscated money from your 100% marginal tax rate?
> I want incentives to be changed - ideally with as few changes as possible.
Ask yourself why? is it because something is broken and you think this will fix it? that’s the classic empathy narrative which I guarantee is actually nothing but envy masquerading as empathy.
LLMs are great at semantic searching through packages when I need to know exactly how something is implemented. If that’s a major part of your job then you’re saving a ton of time with what’s available today.
I’d say generally yes, working yourself too hard for some bullshit SaaS isn’t worth it. But there are bigger problems out there. You might still be expending your health but it could be worth it enough for others to justify the effort.
reply