What baffles me is how OpenAI keeps its doors open. They're paying Microsoft to be able to exist, plus their product requires huge amounts of electricity and infrastructure. OpenAI is unsustainable.
They are, but their biggest expense is probably cloud compute, and most of the "investment" that Microsoft made in them was in the form of cloud compute credits. Essentially, Microsoft has spare cloud capacity, doesn't want to admit that to Wall Street, and so covers that up by giving away the extra capacity in the form of an "investment".
Now, in the end, it likely won't amount to much, but if it keeps Microsoft stock up for a while, it may pay off for the executives involved. Apparently not OpenAI execs, though...
Not defending Musk, but the UK government does not believe in the equal application of law or basic human rights. They have positively no moral high ground to stand on.
This is the main difference in politics, as far as I can tell: Some people push for things that seem really compassionate and intuitively good and right, but actually make the problem a lot worse. But to argue this is almost always futile because all most people seem able to absorb is that you're disagreeing with their intuitively compassionate position, not that you're trying to posit a solution that actually functions, so in their eyes you're an existential threat to them.
> “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
There are ideologues and there are pragmatists. Partisans are, to varying degrees, ideologues who see the world not as it is but how it must be based upon their presuppositions.
Ideologies gave us freedom, democracy, and nearly every genocide. They can be useful, to a degree, but like any model they break down and cause problems when taken to the extreme.
Your post seems like an example of what GP is talking about. A source being biased doesn't mean it can't make a valid point, nor does it mean that MSN can't do their own vetting.
> Your post seems like an example of what GP is talking about.
No it isn't. The GP accused the flaggers of flagging it for ideological reasons, because it goes "counter to their narrative." I'm saying that it's legitmate to flag because it's been posted using the wrong url, because awareness of the true source and knowledge of its biases is useful for evaluating the content.
>But to argue this is almost always futile because all most people seem able to absorb is that you're disagreeing with their intuitively compassionate position
At best Rent Control is a mixed bag. See history of NYC. For those lucky enough to "get in on the ground floor" its great. For others, not so much, as the landlords jack the rent to cover their "losses" on the controlled rent.
I would say Rent Control causes more harm than good overall.
If you consider soviet housing blocks as having operated under rent control, they illustrate the problem. There was little maintenance done by the state --often it was up to the occupants to improve the building. Also, the state didn't build enough units and people had to accommodate multiple families in one unit.
It's a failure but people wish it to be otherwise. They wish for things to spring out of the aether by wishing it so.
It always has. With rent control there is no incentive for landlords to rent, repair, or improve. Which actually reduces the amount of available properties, and dissuades building more housing (because what’s the point?) If you can’t make money doing it then you’re probably losing money.
Thank you for correcting my first-hand experiences. You know what we didn’t do? We didn’t “tax Americans” by continuing to use China, we made what we could in the US.
But Communism was never implemented in it's "described" (or "pure", if you want to frame it that way) form. The Soviet Union was clearly heavily corrupted, among many other issues that diverge from what Communism is "supposed" to be.
Perhaps a system that favors people over corporations?
A system that centralises power over everything into the hands of a single government will ALWAYS end in corruption, surely that’s obvious?
Under capitalism, individuals are allowed to own enterprises. If they’re corrupted, they’ll fail and other enterprises will supersede them. Under socialism and communism, state monopolies deny ownership and accountability to the public. If they’re corrupted, there is nowhere else to turn.
Join the queue for your turnip rations and be happy you’re equal to all the other miserable people stuck under the regime (except the government officials of course - they’re never equal to the plebs)
How anyone can support far-left ideology after the lessons of the 20th century is beyond me.
> A system that centralises power over everything into the hands of a single government will ALWAYS end in corruption, surely that’s obvious?
See: United States government
See: American police/CJS
See: City governments
> Under capitalism, individuals are allowed to own enterprises.
I live under this system, you don't need to explain it. I can see how it has failed for millions of Americans while propping up the very few.
> How anyone can support far-left ideology after the lessons of the 20th century is beyond me.
I never said I supported Communism. But Capitalism is a failure for the proles due to corruption, favoritism, and purchasing of the [American] government.
I’m not sure the scale of corruption in US government really compares to the scale of corruption that existed in Soviet Russia.
> it has failed for millions of Americans while propping up the very few
It only “fails” for people that lack the capacity or the will to contribute to society.
Whereas far-left ideology destroys wealth, freedom and happiness for everyone except the ruling class.
And the “very few” you describe is actually hundreds of millions of people who enjoy a world class high standard of living in America compared to the rest of the world.
We subsidize unhealthy food and wonder why most of our food supply is full of gluten and sugar and other slow-acting poisons, then we take meat and other essential animal proteins that people survived on for millenia and either process them until they're basically nutrition-free or make them so expensive that it's no longer viable. If people in charge thought solving problems was good for them, they'd do that instead of creating them. It's far more profitable to create a problem so that you can sell an expensive treatment for it.
This is why it's getting annoying to see this sort of headline. "Nobody should own the public square... Unless it's a cadre of young San Francisco leftists who represent one of the most extreme left factions in the country. They should own the public square."
This repeated pearl-clutching from the media is getting tiresome. They're acting like X itself is a problem now, as a whole, in theory. But they loved Twitter...?
No one seemed to think twice when Twitter was using its social media platform to amplify left wing views. Not just left, but one of the furthest and most fringe left parts of the country, San Francisco.
America has a natural memetic immune system that precludes things like being a Nazi from public life, but it has no such immune system for the extremist left, some versions of which did many times the damage of the holocaust in the second half of the 20th century, the half we don't really learn about. Don't believe me? Walk down the street wearing a swastika and a hammer & sickle and see which one gets you attacked faster.
We need to develop some memetic antibodies quickly.
