Having been around at that time, I suspect a lot of that behavior was period specific — “quirky” as a character trait was big then — or a put on to fit in socially. Lifted trucks that never see so much as gravel in one place, unicycles and learning functional programming language from comic books in another.
Mark maneuvered for the best of both worlds with the dual class voting shares. He owns the majority of the vote but only ~13% of the share capital. From the rumblings I've heard, I don't think VC allow this type of Google/Meta share class anymore, and/or SP500 don't include new entrants, but not super knowledgeable here.
I work with quite a few company with dual class voting common shares. I will never understand the notion of not implementing that at incorporation if you want it. Will you have the leverage to get a VC to agree to let you keep it? Maybe, maybe not. But the worst that happens is you get rid of it, which is virtually costless.
Honestly, implementing a 10M share one class common company just to make a VC happy sends horrible signals for negotiating with investors. It shows that you are happy to pre-negotiate against yourself from the get go just to look VC friendly. If you cared about retaining control, why would you do that?
It is a wild claim. I think it's important to understand that LessWrong -- whatever it eventually became -- comes out of the SF Bay Area "Rationalist" community. Despite claims to generality, it's a narrow way of reasoning about the world with some odd outcomes. Personally, I think the notion of an "information hazard" is a fine story point in a Neal Stephenson story but taking the idea seriously enough to have nightmares about Roko's basilisk and to ban discussion of it[1] is pushing past the bounds of 'rationality' I think. That a chunk of the core LessWrong crowd went into Effective Altruism ends-justify-the-means think or into neo-reactionary circles -- to a less degree -- is also worth noting: despite claims with regard to general well-being both political ideologies are more than happy to cause mass suffering so long as the expected outcomes are good, eventually, maybe.
This claim does not look so wild of you encounter people outside your usual educated and smart bubble. Just recently in the sauna a girl explained to me how salt is good to your soul. But not white chemical salt from the store. Only raw salt from under the ground, 10€ per small bottle. She does not sell it, just a victim herself.
No, the claim is still wild. Ignorance of chemistry in one person or woo-woo beliefs is not an indication for the article's general claims about humanity. You also do not know me or my social circle. There's a cynicism in your post that says maybe more about you than about the claim in the article, friend.
I was not that cynical before, but I live in a town where any encounter outside my friends makes me grind my teeth. Taxi driver tells me how covid is fake and all (sic) doctors are there to kill you, not help you.
Doctor tells me how I need to believe in god and I will be cured.
My mum believes in all kind of stupid stuff: astrology, fake science and totally fake history.
Even my close friend speaks about cosmic energies and healthy sound vibrations that channel meridians (the only exception I have among my friends).
I can't handle this shit anymore and I am loosing faith in humanity.
No one's dictating your choices? If you thought eating glass was tasty it wouldn't be factually inaccurate to tell you that it's bad for you. Same idea for hyperpalatable foods.
Strictly speaking, I'm not sure that the US is founded on doing what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law but I do think that's an increasingly common understanding. A nation state does have some stake in maintaining the basic health of its people, whether you agree that's desirable or, if it is, to what degree.
I think what the OP is getting at is that not knowing about something in great detail doesn't mean it's not important. Folks'll hew to what they find immediately pressing or have an inclination toward. Which is to say, the world is monstrously complicated and we are small and there's only so much an individual can focus on in their life. The collapse of fish populations due to overfishing will cause starvation, a lot of it. The erosion of personal privacy will abet a certain kind of tyranny. I don't think these are different scales of important but they are different problems that require detailed knowledge to comprehend to a good degree, which implies time and interest.
It didn't make the transition to 64 bits worth of memory with the record intact. https://lwn.net/Articles/820969/ Although the CVE _is_ from 2005 so perhaps it doesn't count.
I mean... I'd say expecting a program written for a 32 bit OS to just work on 64 is excessive. And the fix is just to add mildly sane memory limits to the processes, which is an OS level task, thus, not necessarily a bug.
I would argue that the fix is for the software to refuse to function if it can detect that it's in an environment where it won't function safely, to fail-closed rather than fail-open.
Sure, and if you're ideologically opposed to a policy you can make a comment like this. What's needed is data on many alternative approaches, what policies _and_ executions taken as one promote better outcomes? Over what timeframes? Otherwise it's just all shouting into a windstorm.
That’s… what I’m arguing? There’s a hard problem to be solved with uncertain paths toward a solution — or uncertainty of what “solved” means in this case, maybe, depending on whether endemic is an acceptable outcome — and every attempt at a solution that doesn’t work out, or doesn’t work out sufficiently well, is data added to the project of getting better outcomes for all. I’m not entirely sure what you’ve read in my comment but I’m certainly not saying we shouldn’t view things plainly.
I would also challenge your implicit notion here that there is a binary pass/fail solution to societal levels of drug addiction. Like any seriously hard problem there are policies that have been proposed and implemented around that world that have some positive outcomes in some regards and negatives in others. Incarceration (the Drug War) theoretically makes serious drug addiction absent from public life, a positive, but with the result of growing the police state, a negative. Vice versa for Oregon’s policy, now that it’s run for a while. I think we’re recently finding that Portugal’s approach which Oregon based their policy on also does not have better than expected outcomes, although the data is early yet.
> What's needed is data on many alternative approaches, what policies _and_ executions taken as one promote better outcomes?
> Over what timeframes?
This is where the goalpost shifting happens.
I can not think of a single instance in recent history where a political leader has admitted that a policy they like has failed because it was fundamentally a bad idea.
It's less 'save' and 'not destroy' although that's maybe a fine distinction.
In Genesis God is drawn to do something about Sodom as the din of shrieks from that city has spurred him to action, shrieks either from people of the city oppressed in it or visitors to the city oppressed by it. Considering the Lot story later and God's intention to destroy Sodom presumably shrieks by visitors. Anyhow. Yes, Abraham haggles. Just prior to this we hear God's internal monologue where he decides, for the first time, to include a human -- post Adam, depending on how you read the naming of things -- in the decision making process that governs the world. Abraham is presumably horrified -- the narrator of Genesis does not say -- and haggles God down from destroying the city outright, to 50 etc etc daring to go as low as 10, a number that, just so happens, to be a later minimum administrative unit size in Jewish society. In the narrative structure of Genesis we have already seen an attempt to eradicate evil through destruction -- the Flood -- and that does not work, to the point where God promises not to do outright, global destruction like that again. So it's clear in the narrative -- though perhaps not to Abraham who may or may not have known about the post-Flood promise -- that God has a maximum upper bound on the amount of people that can be destroyed in response to evil: all. Abraham brings this maximum upper bound down to 50 as an opening gambit, then etc etc. It is worth noting that Abraham, at this point in the story, is elderly and rich, so he's presumably used to negotiation as a way of life.
Why would Sodom not be destroyed if there were less honest people? God's intention before consulting Abraham is to destroy the whole city but it is Abraham that bargains the number down to a minimum. If ten can be found, the threshold for destruction isn't reached. An entirely reasonable read here is that Abraham couldn't bear to see an entire city's worth of people destroyed and God was willing to be convinced otherwise. In itself that's a remarkable thing for a Near Eastern deity and is one sign that Genesis as a piece of literature is in conversation with and opposed to other contemporary Near Eastern literature.
Anyway, that's not the only read here -- there are millennia of commentary on this very text -- but it is worth pointing out that the Genesis text comes from the Mesopotamian culture, one that is both distinct from our Greek-derived way of thinking/being and has also gone extinct outside of literature, so norms that may have appeared self-evident to the original audience might not come through to modern readers so easily, or at all.
Theoretically OP's concern is still possible with AEB but it would require non-trivial coordination between offensive drivers where each subsequent driver comes in at a lower speed than the previous, cuts OP's car off -- now slowed -- with the same distance as previous in order to force a standstill. It would be a neat stunt driving trick.
