Last week’s new model was a version 2.0 update of Bytedance’s Seedance video generator. As always, one has the feeling that lies are travelling around the world twice before the truth has time to put its shoes on. So here I am for another debunk.
10 favorite products from the 90s and early 2000s, before pop-up ads, subscriptions and privacy issues became ubiquitous in our devices -- and our products still felt like they belonged to us.
"Here are a few theses: After 2.5 years of insane hype, there’s no evidence that current AI is making the design process faster. Good design comes from a broader process, not a one-off conversation – meaning the one-off chat paradigm is unlikely to generate good design for non-designers. AI architecture means it will continue to be worse at designs that are 'out of the training data' – the bold, the novel, designs with very tight constraints."
This is not an anomaly, by the way. I've interviewed many multiple Meta staffers (including senior leaders), and can find little evidence that leadership actually read "Snow Crash" and/or even cared about virtual worlds. Even after spending tens of billions claiming they were building the Metaverse.
I think anyone who says there is nothing interesting in Rand either didn’t read it or is acting in bad faith. Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are uniquely fascinating even if you don’t agree with her stance.
Chris Hedges is a self reported socialist. So makes sense they would not like books negative on socialism. But you can be a socialist and still engage with competing thoughts. Just like a capitalist can review Marx and admit the ideas are important/interesting.
I don't know how anyone can read her and not feel the overt reader manipulation. Her skill, if any, is to break the 3rd wall without seeming to acknowledge that 3rd wall and constantly tell the reader they are one of these special people that are borne better than others.
Rand is a clear intellectual trap for lazy thinkers. If you like her, you're not thinking.
I think reading philosophical arguments masquerading as novels, or any sort of fiction, is an intellectual trap in general. Anything can be made to work in a fictional work simply by saying that it works. It means nothing.
"Genghis Khan the 73rd, who got high on some really weird drugs in the fifth year of his reign, decided that everybody in his empire should be tortured for at least 73 minutes every day. And everybody loved it and completely voluntarily sang his praises and said it was the best thing that ever happened to society and there were just all sorts of benefits and you should totally organize your society this way too because look how well it is working for this one."
> I think reading philosophical arguments masquerading as novels, or any sort of fiction, is an intellectual trap in general. Anything can be made to work in a fictional work simply by saying that it works. It means nothing.
Only if you take the work as-given. Whenever I read a fiction book I take it as a starting point for thinking about things. The book provides a what-if. It's up to the reader to figure out if that what-if makes any sense, and if the conclusions in the book follow from that.
The parent comment has more nuanced opinion than yours. They also substantiate it by raising a point of value in reviewing contrary viewpoint, whereas your comment is devoid of any arguments.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
Literally every person I have any respect for as an intellectual has described Ayn Rand as slop.
I have yet to hear positive things come from anyone who isn’t a libertarian. The sort of person who identifies with the characters because they could also envision themselves doing a monologue that lasts 45 pages.
Both Rand and William McGonagall are widely regarded as are uniquely fascinating.
In a layered complex world both the above statement and the statement that there's little of interest in Rand's books for socialists, for hedge fund traders, or for the majority of people with a background in political science, can be true.
Stephen Fry, well known for his love of the English language and breadth of eclectic interest, when discussing the Scot said:
I am too kind to you and to [McGonagall's] memory to reproduce the entire poem'
(The Ode Less Travelled: Unlocking the Poet Within [NY: Gotham, 2007], p. 153), and further:
Almost everything that can go wrong with a poem has gone wrong here. One might argue that McGonagall has brilliantly memorialised a doomed and structurally flawed bridge in congruently doomed and structurally flawed verse.
His poem is a disaster for a disaster: it is the Tay Bridge, crashing hopelessly to its destruction and dragging every innocent word with it.
It is not buttressed by metre, rhyme, sense or reason and even as we read it we feel it collapse under the weight of its own absurdity and ineptitude.
(p. 154, as above)
Regardless of anyone's position on the political stance of Rand, her written works deserve little more than to be the subject of atrocious parody of her robber baron sick o' fantasy, the breathless bodice ripping drama of trains repeatedly entering and being reversed out of tunnels against a soundscape of a geared steampunk stock ticker of yore.
I dunno who you were talking to, but the RL research areas I worked in had some definite Neil Stevenson fans.
but then we weren't the pricks who thought you could make up for a shit lighting setup with polygon count cough any screenshot from horizon worlds cough
There's precious little value for those types to read stuff like "Snow Crash".
It's like the people saying "It's obvious these STEM people didn't take humanities courses". Well, yeah. The dream for the incoming freshman at Stanford's CS program isn't to graduate with a degree. The dream is to have some VC come onto campus, see some BS project the freshman cooked up, tell the freshman "You're literally Jesus Christ, and I want to fund your startup" and drop out with access to millions in funding and a network of people who can give more funding when the original round dries up.
Humanities courses and reading humanistic conceptions of how tech could go wrong doesn't get you millions of dollars. Reckless abandon does.
As someone in the burbs + middle america, Facebook still has a frustrating grip on many of the community social communications which tend to take place in private Facebook groups (Girl Scouts, community HOA, etc.)
There is a whole world out there, full of people who call Wi-Fi the internet. Nearly all of them do many things better than you, and most of them wouldn't treat you with contempt just because you find small talk difficult, can't swim or can't dress well on a tight budget.
Think about what kind of image your present to them and if it's really how you would like them to see you. Just honestly.
Schools now giving Chromebooks to Kindergarteners is some crazy unintentional dystopian shit.
"They have little badges, like they have their password on them, and they just wave it in front of the Chrome Chromebook [so] they don’t have to memorize all that early on."
If you think those kids will ever type a password in their life, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. I'd say what they are being taught is very relevant to their future.
The thing is some of these tools have enduring 100s of years. Multiple generations. Others have changed in just a single generation to be nearly unrecognizable (ipod -> iphone)and their existence can be wiped away by trend/market making/capitalism.
Learning how to use a screwdriver helps even when the electric is out, the internet is offline, etc. etc. Learning cursive may not be as immediately helpful but we have all come to accept that developing more neural pathways is important and "smooth brain" is bad
"To understand why PWM bulbs have so much flicker, imagine them being controlled by a robot arm flicking the on/off switch thousands of times per second. When you want bright light, the robot varies the time so the switch is in the 'on' mode most of the time, and 'off' only briefly. Whereas when you want to dim the light, the robot arm puts the switch in 'off' most of the time and 'on' only briefly."
It's entirely fine if the rate is high enough, but lowering the frequency of the PWM and using smaller inductors (or even no inductor at all) is a prime way to make the bulbs cheaper.
This the reverse, actually, you can use much smaller inductors the higher the switching frequency. That's why the GaN chargers are so much smaller, for example.
Smaller relative to the requirement for the frequency: you can cheap out both using lower frequency components _and_ using a small inductor than you should be for that lower frequency (or again, not using one at all at that lower frequency because it's still higher than the eye can directly perceive and you think that's all that matters)
I've been skeptical about XR headsets for years, but this post makes some really interesting points that I haven't seen discussed much, like:
"While XR devices like VisionPro do re-create home and office setups and allow for vast screen real estate, they lack a true sense of location. Evolution shaped our brains to operate differently depending on whether we’re traveling or at home. Researchers call this the encoding specificity principle—our memories link closely with the environment where they were first formed."
IE, even if the VisionPro wasn't as heavy as a sushi plate, it would still have fundamental problems!
reply