If there's a one word takeaway of the article it's attitude, and I'm curious if someone with as foul a one as yours can compete as well. Let me know if you write something!

The reason you feel that way is because social anxiety correlates with anhedonia. The person doesn't engage in playfulness which is the basis of social connection across mammals. Because they aren't playful, you perceive this as "deepness."

This cognitive fallacy connecting deepness / seriousness to substance, and connecting playfulness to triviality and frivolity has unfortunately affected me (I remember arguing it in high school English class!)

Consciously adopting a "playful" attitude fixes my social anxiety, and adds charisma and humor to my character.

I have never seen a place more playful than a roulette or a craps table in Vegas, people high five each other, they form groups they trash the casino when the bank wins... but it is very shallow and not very deep, it lasts a couple of hours and then each of the participant go separate ways.

So HN is upvoting AI written ad slop now?

Saw this same "product" astroturfed on Reddit.

3d printing is not the approach that will yield organs. My money is on the work Michael Levin is doing on bioelectronics, where you essentially “command” (/convince) cells to turn into the organ you need by talking with them in cellular electronic language.

My mind-reading senses tell me parent might be thinking about the scaffolding approach where you show cells the vague outlines of a lung or heart in the form of an extracellular matrix and then they go "hmm, we are building a heart then".

If I remember correctly you need both. Program the cells to be X organ cells, and provide a scaffold for them to grow on.

that seems like a way harder problem than convincing your body not to kill the pig organ

UBI is the wrong approach.

Once CBDCs become a thing, citizens should have the ability to have direct credit relationships with the central bank.

We can then transition from a cash based monetary system to an accrual based one (similar to how businesses do their accounting.)

Public benefits, then, rather than being given out like it is currently (e.g. you get $200 for food stamps) will instead be based on allowing you to draw credit.

So, the eGovCreditCard would for example always allow any citizen to draw $200 per month for food expenses.

Potentially, if we want to do more generous policies a la "UBI," we could add e.g. $1000 always being allowed per month for rent.

Health care similarly, instead of if the archaic and very inefficient system we have now where those on the dole often go to emergency rooms, money is funneled through "insurance", etc... would allow you to draw money for regular doctor care. Maybe at a set maxiumim limit per citizen, e.g. $1M.

Your suggestion basically amounts to: digitize and centralize welfare. There are already electronic cards for food. If the money is drawn directly from the central bank as credit instead of from the state welfare fund, it won't make it any more efficient. In fact any experimentation among states will disappear. Also, if CBDCs become a thing, you could see a slow slide into behavior control. What people eat, and where they live becomes a concern for the central bank, because they get to decide who the approved vendors are for those things. "Central" anything is a design smell in most cases.

Getting rid of cash also requires proper paper work and identification so you can sign up for the CBDC wallet. In that case you're excluding the very people from the system who need it the most.

I never said get rid of cash, CBDCs and cash can coexist.

Also it would make welfare more efficient, as you can garnish earnings from citizens to repay back the debt, whereas now it's just a gift.

In this scheme, what prevents a central bank from abusing its position and denying you access to food due to ideological concern? Cash (for basic stuff) spends the same regardless of my political affiliation or criminal history. An employer can do the same, but I can get a new employer with some effort. I'm not sure I can switch to a different central bank easily.

CBDCs and cash dollars can coexist. If you don't like borrowing from the government, no one is forcing you, you can earn and spend as you do now.

So you're saying that instead of receiving $200/month worth of food, poor citizens should go into debt to the central bank by $200 every month? How would that be a better approach? Personal debt is already a huge burden, this seems predatory.

>"...credit relationships with the central bank"

Will that come with the healthy interest rate one could never hope to repay?

Interest is not always fulfilled by usury.

For example, friends lend each other money without usury simply because the "interest" comes from helping a friend.

Similarly, the central bank which is an agent of the government fulfills its interest by having healthy citizens. So there probably wouldn't be usury.

Instead, earnings from the citizen would be garnished if they had debt.

> But calling it homelessness is pretty insulting to the actual homeless

I'm sure homeless people have more pressing thoughts than what words nerds on the internet use to describe outdoor living

Not if the nerds on the internet are stirring the societal discourse around you. That affects the unhoused whether they care or not.

Even assuming this is true, that doesn't make the article insulting. Myths about how housing does not follow supply and demand affect homelessness even more, but that doesn't make the person spreading these myths morally wrong.

> but that doesn't make the person spreading these myths morally wrong.

That’s a nice out for anyone who gets caught lying. “I didn’t think it was morally wrong to repeat lies.”

So you're protecting people from something that even you admit they don't care about?

You can be affected by something and not care about it. You can be affected by things you don't even know about, like the way regulations shape the houses we can live in.

More likely he learned the algorithm to create fake coupons himself. If I recall correctly it's literally just the UPC and how much to take off. There was NO security to the system.

Based on the blog post saying they're able to use their fleet (i.e. owners of comma) to train their models, it's probably to send footage back home. Tesla does this too btw.

Yep, and it’s why I never bought a Tesla. Also why I haven’t bought any new cars (they all send data home for various purposes, including to sell to insurance companies or advertisers). I’m not adverse to sharing that data necessarily, but I want control over what and when I share at the very least, and without an always-on net connection.

Turkey bought Russian weapons and wasn't kicked out. They were barred from buying more US weapons for a while.

Neither concept nor plan are appropriate alternatives for scheme. Let's not argue with the inventors of the language on word choice.

I have no desire to argue. I like understanding things and I was hopeful to understand why I felt the way I did when I read that sentence.

I learned a lot! I’m really grateful that people-who-weren’t-you read my question impartially and contributed their experiences.