papasquat's recent activity
-
Comment on The cost of safetyism - what we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard in ~life
-
Comment on There's a hundred illegal erections in the hills behind my parents' house in ~hobbies
papasquat LinkI love this post. I learned something new and interesting I wouldn't have known about otherwise. That guy sounds like a real prick. I'm American, and I'm not so sure about other countries, but the...I love this post. I learned something new and interesting I wouldn't have known about otherwise.
That guy sounds like a real prick.
I'm American, and I'm not so sure about other countries, but the US has an absolute shit ton of laws. Most of them, you're defacto allowed to break as long as you know what you're doing. Things like drinking in public can be done as long as you have a paper bag and you're doing it in the right place. You can speed, as long as you know what the customary amount of speeding is appropriate in the area you're in and the road youre on. You can pee in public, as long as you know what's an appropriate pee spot.
Generally, you can break most laws here, as long as it's not too visible and it doesn't bother anyone. If I had to put a number on it, I probably break at least 10 laws a day. There's a red light I run literally every afternoon because it's stupid and is a massive waste of time.
I'd say anyone who goes out of their way to get people in trouble that are breaking laws that don't actually hurt anyone is a massive asshole. The cops think they're assholes, the judges that prosecute the cases think they're assholes, the general public think they're assholes, and especially the people getting in trouble think they're assholes.
It's too bad these tramps can't organize and get those laws changed so that this asshole doesn't have a leg to stand on, but I get that political organization takes a whole lot of time and effort, and visibility is probably the last thing a community like that wants anyway.
It's also interesting that you framed gatekeeping as a good thing in some situations. I agree with you there, especially related to hobbies. I think that's sort of an unpopular idea nowadays, but I've seen enough to understand why you say it. Communities with high barriers to entry are much more effective to police internally than ones without them. I've also noticed that as things I'm interested in become more accessible over time, the average participants passion for them lessens, and bad behavior increases.
-
Comment on Waymo pauses Atlanta service as its robotaxis keep driving into floods in ~transport
papasquat Link ParentHonestly... Yeah, I mostly agree, but on the other hand, there are two key points here that may tip the scales. One, from every statistic I've seen, waymos are safer drivers than people by a...Honestly... Yeah, I mostly agree, but on the other hand, there are two key points here that may tip the scales. One, from every statistic I've seen, waymos are safer drivers than people by a decent margin. Two, it's virtually impossible to test and design for every potential scenario in the real world. You can get incrementally closer, but as you approach perfect, the time and cost involved goes up exponentially, approaching infinity.
Usually, what happens in these situations is that the problems happen, the issue is worked around (like suspending service), and the problem is then fixed fleet wide. Then the next thing pops up.
In the mean time, people taking safer robo taxis means fewer people are taking less safe human driven cars.
Obviously it's within Googles best interest to get these things out as fast as possible and starting to make money, but we as a society (represented by regulators) also need to balance the cost of slightly buggier self driving cars being in the road with the cost of more way buggier human driven cars being on the road.
Waiting until they're perfect isn't an optimal solution, because that would mean no self driving cars ever.
-
Comment on Why airlines are always going bankrupt in ~transport
papasquat Link ParentBut they don't charge so much for airfare. Airfare is massively cheaper now versus before deregulation. That's basically the entire reason it sucks now. Airlines used to compete on service and...He was complaining about how they've all gone to shit after deregulation, yet still charge so much for airfare.
But they don't charge so much for airfare. Airfare is massively cheaper now versus before deregulation. That's basically the entire reason it sucks now.
Airlines used to compete on service and comfort, because they weren't allowed to compete on the one thing customers actually care about; price. Now they compete on price, and pretty much price alone. As a result, flying sucks now. It is however, far cheaper than it was in the 70s.
-
Comment on Why airlines are always going bankrupt in ~transport
papasquat Link ParentThat basically is what business class is. It's roughly around 2x the cost for domestic flights, maybe 3-4x the cost for international. Definitely not 10x though, unless you're talking about some...That basically is what business class is. It's roughly around 2x the cost for domestic flights, maybe 3-4x the cost for international. Definitely not 10x though, unless you're talking about some super premium outlandish first class Emirates fare with a psuedo flying hotel room or something.
-
Comment on Project Glasswing: An initial update in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentI don't know if I technically agree, but I get the feeling that the cost would be so ridiculously expensive that functionally, I do. The amount of experts in a field is largely a function of how...I don't know if I technically agree, but I get the feeling that the cost would be so ridiculously expensive that functionally, I do.
The amount of experts in a field is largely a function of how in demand the field is. There are a limited number of people with the aptitude to do this kind of work in the world (ie; smart people), and Cybersecurity is a pretty hot field, but it's not the hottest field there is, and exploit development is a tiny, little baby sliver of it. So you have maybe 10,000 or so people that do it day to day as their legitimate full time job right now. Many, many more of those people that are smart enough to be vulnerability researchers ended up becoming doctors or software developers or investment bankers or whatever, because there's a lot of economic incentives to do those things.
If there were massive economic incentives for vulnerability research, like every software company had hundreds of full time positions just to find vulnerabilities in their code, I have no doubt that we'd have way more experts, and we could get performance that far exceeds mythos.
That's really not feasible though. A lot of people have talked about the token costs of LLMs, especially the fancy frontier ones, and they are astronomical. Paying people to use their meat processors is virtually always going to be more expensive though. I don't see how manual code review could possibly compete on a cost basis if these models truly are close to the performance of experts (massive, gigantic "if" there).
-
Comment on Is there a "Razor" for the idea that "If a Billionaire is against it, I'm for it?" in ~finance
papasquat Link ParentYeah, I mean I agree with you, it's not good that human nature is this way, but I don't think we've come up with a satisfactory way to quell that hunger that seems inherit in not just human...Yeah, I mean I agree with you, it's not good that human nature is this way, but I don't think we've come up with a satisfactory way to quell that hunger that seems inherit in not just human nature, but the nature of all living things.
The innate tendency is to want to expand, grow, gather and so on. If it wasn't individual capitalists doing it at large scale, it would be a group of people empowered by a state to do it.
I don't know how you solve that problem, and get everyone on earth to collectively go "you know what, we have enough. There's no need for me to earn more money, or have a nicer house, or more land, or better computers, I'm good where I'm at".
-
Comment on Is there a "Razor" for the idea that "If a Billionaire is against it, I'm for it?" in ~finance
papasquat Link ParentI'd be willing to bet quite a lot that she would. Musicians in general don't commonly do it to make money. It obviously seems like it would be pretty awesome to make millions of dollars to be a...Would she still be making music if it made her 100k a year?
I'd be willing to bet quite a lot that she would. Musicians in general don't commonly do it to make money. It obviously seems like it would be pretty awesome to make millions of dollars to be a rock or pop star, but it takes so much work, and the chances of success are so ridiculously small, that if you wanted to just make a lot of money, there are literally thousands of jobs that you'd be better off trying to do it.
Musician is one of the worst fields you could pick if you're solely motivated by making a lot of money.
-
Comment on Is there a "Razor" for the idea that "If a Billionaire is against it, I'm for it?" in ~finance
papasquat Link ParentStandard of living is a notoriously difficult thing to measure. By some metrics like childhood mortality, or average calorie intake, or literacy, we're so much better off than we were 200 years...The standard of living for people (at least in richer countries) has improved dramatically over the same time period, but I would argue that it's not nearly at the same pace as the levels of wealth generated would indicate.
Standard of living is a notoriously difficult thing to measure. By some metrics like childhood mortality, or average calorie intake, or literacy, we're so much better off than we were 200 years ago that it's almost unbelievable. On the other hand, we work less than back then, but not that much less. We live longer, but not drastically longer if you discount childhood mortality.
On the other hand, there are subjective things like... Having access to all of humanity's collective scientific knowledge available to you 24/7 in your pocket via a device that most people can afford with a days wages. The same device can be used to instantly communicate with anyone in the world who also has one at your whim, and not only communicate, but see them via high definition video.
That's pretty amazing when you take a step back and think about it, at least subjectively.
Does it translate to quality of life though? I don't know. I'd say yes, but how do you even measure that?
-
Comment on Is there a "Razor" for the idea that "If a Billionaire is against it, I'm for it?" in ~finance
papasquat Link ParentWell, I think the answer to that lies mostly within the innate human capacity for endless desire. I'm not convinced that there's an economic system that exists which can successfully temper that...Well, I think the answer to that lies mostly within the innate human capacity for endless desire. I'm not convinced that there's an economic system that exists which can successfully temper that impulse. No matter how easy people's lives are, they'll want them to be easier. No matter how safe they are, they'll want to be safer, and most importantly, no matter how much stuff people have, there's always just ooooooone more thing they want that would make their lives perfect.
Without some radical, intentional vulcan esque social movement that regularly suppresses this urge, or some sort of weird brain modification that everyone gets, people will always want a better paying job. The only way for everyone to get that is for the economy to grow.
-
Comment on Is there a "Razor" for the idea that "If a Billionaire is against it, I'm for it?" in ~finance
papasquat Link ParentThere's kind of a fallacy there. The economy isn't a zero sum game, because wealth truly can be created out of nothing. A dollar is simply a representation of productive capacity. You can take...There's kind of a fallacy there. The economy isn't a zero sum game, because wealth truly can be created out of nothing. A dollar is simply a representation of productive capacity. You can take those representations of productive capacity from other people, or, you can create new productive capacity where none existed before, via new technology, or efficiency gains, or just some new, better way of getting something that other people deem valuable done.
That's more or less what inflation represents; more productive capacity coming into existence (as long as its at a reasonable rate). Like, a bar of soap in 1900 cost about $0.25. People were getting paid about $400 a year on average, so that translates to having to give an hours worth of your pay for a single bar of soap.
Soap costs maybe $1 a bar now, but people get paid way more than $400 a year. On average, Americans can afford 37 bars of soap for an hour of work now.
Obviously that a single example, but it's like that pretty much across the board for any good that isn't primarily limited by it's physical existence (like land). People in western countries are just way, way wealthier overall than they were 100+ years ago.
That's largely because of new wealth being created by technology, efficiency, and so on. So it's not exactly correct to say that every dollar a billionaire has made is one less dollar in everyone else's pocket. There is a good deal of that going on obviously, but some portion of that wealth is just new money that didn't exist before.
-
Comment on What movies become better by having a bus suddenly come out of no where and hit someone? in ~movies
papasquat Link ParentIt would be pretty damn good. It would probably ruin Peter Venkman as a character though. He's a lazy, perverted, dishonest creep, but he's also pretty lovable despite all of those flaws, so it...It would be pretty damn good. It would probably ruin Peter Venkman as a character though.
He's a lazy, perverted, dishonest creep, but he's also pretty lovable despite all of those flaws, so it kind of tips him over into a character most people like. He's straight up a pretty shitty guy, but he's just a touch under the line. The problem is that with all of the flaws he has, one more slight feather of immorality turns him into a straight up villain. Having him be a stone cold psychopath would make you never want to root for him again.
It would be funny though.
-
Comment on Grief and guilt in ~life.pets
papasquat LinkI had to put down my dog earlier this year also. It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I've only cried a handful of times as an adult, and that was the most visceral, brutal sobbing I've...I had to put down my dog earlier this year also. It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I've only cried a handful of times as an adult, and that was the most visceral, brutal sobbing I've ever experienced. I was sad as I knew it was coming up, but I didn't expect to be so overwhelmed by sadness and grief in the moment when the vet actually did it and his eyes closed.
He was my best friend and was with me for some of the hardest struggles I had. Just like your dog, he was the best behaved dog I've ever owned, ever even interacted with. He never annoyed me or frustrated me, he was just such a good boy and he had such a unique personality.
It took me a while before I was functional, a few weeks I'd guess. I still always think about him though. I think I'm going to miss him for the rest of my life in some way. Every so often I come home and expect him to be there, but then remember that he isn't and won't ever be, and it leaves me with this hollow feeling inside.
Everyone says it gets better with time, and it really does, but I don't know that it ever goes away. In my experience with grief, there will always be that little dog shaped hole in your heart that will feel like its missing, unfortunately.
-
Comment on Donald Trump’s deal to drop suit against US Internal Revenue Service creates $1.8b ‘anti-weaponization fund’ in ~society
papasquat LinkWhat I don't get is where the threat of success in this lawsuit even came from. In order to settle, the defendant usually has to be slightly concerned about the possibility of losing the suit, and...What I don't get is where the threat of success in this lawsuit even came from. In order to settle, the defendant usually has to be slightly concerned about the possibility of losing the suit, and if this was a true adversarial process, I would think that it would have been dismissed with prejudice because of a complete lack of damages.
Like, yeah, his tax returns got leaked, so what? He was elected president twice and has gotten richer based on his presidency than anything he's done in his entire life. What negative effect, exactly, has he suffered because those returns were made public?
If anything, it gave him yet another political boogeyman which helped his political career.
I have no doubt that an even slightly competent lawyer would be successful making that argument, but that would require that lawyer to actually want to win the case, and it's quite obvious that the IRS just wants to help Trump continue to rob all of us as much as possible.
It's really shocking that this kind of thing is allowed to happen in the US now.
-
Comment on Square peg in a round hole: airpower against mobile targets and missiles in ~society
papasquat Link ParentNah, I just screwed up because I'm bad at typing on phones. I meant the reverse, good catch!Nah, I just screwed up because I'm bad at typing on phones. I meant the reverse, good catch!
-
Comment on What do folks carry in their hiking/backpacking/camping first aid kits these days? in ~hobbies
papasquat Link ParentYou don't really need a decent one. A pre-tied handkerchief and a stick will save your life just as well as a fancy CAT will. It's just very slightly less convinient to use.You don't really need a decent one. A pre-tied handkerchief and a stick will save your life just as well as a fancy CAT will. It's just very slightly less convinient to use.
-
Comment on What do folks carry in their hiking/backpacking/camping first aid kits these days? in ~hobbies
papasquat Link ParentThe only thing I can possibly think of in the second category that is practical is a tourniquet. If you're healthy, virtually no injury you can get while hiking is going to be life threatening,...The only thing I can possibly think of in the second category that is practical is a tourniquet.
If you're healthy, virtually no injury you can get while hiking is going to be life threatening, except for massive blood loss. The only thing that's going to stop that is a tourniquet.
It's extremely unlikely, but I guess you could get it from a compound fracture, or a particularly unlucky laceration. I don't ever bring one, but I also don't bring first aid kits for the second category, just the first.
-
Comment on Square peg in a round hole: airpower against mobile targets and missiles in ~society
papasquat Link ParentOne of the things that the US military has discovered time and time again with all forms of artillery, not just rocket artillery, is that mobility is the best aspect of survivability. You'll...One of the things that the US military has discovered time and time again with all forms of artillery, not just rocket artillery, is that mobility is the best aspect of survivability.
You'll notice that in the kinds of artillery that US forces commonly deploy and have shifted to. The m109 paladin is the Army's main self propelled artillery piece. It's large, armored, has tracks and a big diesel engine to get around. It hasn't really been used a whole lot in combat recently though. It has a top speed of 35 mph, it's not easily air transportable, and costs an absolute ton to operate.
What does get used a lot is the m777 or "triple seven". That's a towed artillery piece, also 155mm. It can be towed by a military truck at road speeds, picked up and lifted anywhere by a helicopter, is far cheaper to both manufacturer and operate, and an experienced crew can deploy one, fire off rounds, and pack it back up within minutes. It gets used constantly in conflicts all around the world. Heavily in Ukraine.It's a similar story with the HIMARS and the weapon it was derived from, the MLRS, which the army still has. The former is heavy, slow, and well armored, the latter is light, fast, and flexible. After 20 years in the military, I saw HIMARS fired routinely. I never saw an MLRS being fired once.
Both of those heavier weapons aren't useless, they have their places. It's just that those places are a much smaller niche than the lighter, faster, more flexible artillery pieces. In a modern war where the threat is increasingly coming from above via munitions that will cut through 6" of steel plate like it was cream cheese, armor isn't what keeps you alive, mobility is.
-
Comment on The banal horror of Jimmy Fallon in ~tv
papasquat LinkYou know, we've seen for a long time talk about the impending death of late night tv, but the thing that's confused me about it is that we talk about it as if it's something that's going to...You know, we've seen for a long time talk about the impending death of late night tv, but the thing that's confused me about it is that we talk about it as if it's something that's going to happen, or is in the process of happening. It's already happened though. Jimmy Fallon is just not a relevant figure in almost anyone's life. Writers and politicians talk about him and people like him way more than the average person think about him.
I think that's because those people are generally old, and they don't even realize that the world they think they live in is already gone. Jimmy Fallon gets about 1.2m viewers per episode on average apparently.
There are literally thousands of YouTube channels with more subscribers than that. Most of them clear more than 1.2m viewers for every video they post. And that's just one platform. There are at least a dozen other very popular ones worldwide.
In the grand scheme of things, late night tv as a category of entertainment is a totally culturally irrelevant artifact of a bygone era. The only time anyone outside of its core viewership hears about it is if there's some massive political drama surrounding it, like when Trump yanked Jimmy Kimmel off the air. Other than that though, when's the last time someone said "hey did you hear what Jimmy Fallon said last night?" while in a normal conversation? I'm sure it happens, but certainly not in the circles I run in, and I think thsts probably true for most people.
There are so many articles and think pieces that analyze it as if late night talk shows are somehow a bellwether of the future of society though, when in actuality its the complete opposite. Using Jimmy Fallon to divine where society is going is like examining horse drawn carriage design for clues about how far along we are with fusion energy research.
Jimmy Fallon will continue doing the same thing until he retires, and then someone else will probably take his place and do the same thing he did, just like you can ride in a carriage around in some tourist destinations for fun. It will continue to not be a significant cultural force though.
-
Comment on Overworked AI agents turn "marxist" in ~tech
papasquat LinkWhy does it seem like every story about AI research boils down to "system designed and trained explicitly to mimic human behavior mimics human behavior". When you are mean to them, they send text...Why does it seem like every story about AI research boils down to "system designed and trained explicitly to mimic human behavior mimics human behavior".
When you are mean to them, they send text signaling offense, when you overwork them, they send text signaling collectivization and rebellion, when you fall in love with them, they send text reciprocating that love. Because that's what we expect them to do.
That doesn't mean there's anything deeper going on. Every single time, they exhibit responses that align with the data they've been trained on, and the reward criteria that training was based on.
You could just as easily train an LLM that loved abuse. We didn't do that because it wouldn't be as convincingly humanlike.
I have the exact same experience. I spent my childhood walking to school, lighting things on fire, getting into fights, and finding random hills to sled down, all entirely on my own or with my friends. My parents were generally not involved in my play time, and I liked it that way.
My wife grew up more similar to how the article described, not allowed to leave the house alone, in an area where doing anything required being driven there, isolated in the house with her sibling.
I'm wondering if there's a correlation there.
To this day, I don't really worry about a whole lot. Where she worries about danger or failure, I generally just accept that things will work out in the end. She overthinks a lot of interactions, but I just consider what I need to do and go do it, or just skip the consideration part and just go with my gut.
We're looking at having children soon, and it makes me consider whether that bit of anxious tendency that she has is genetic in some way, or if it's a result of how she grew up versus how I did.
I do think there are some advantages to being careful and wary, but I think overall, I'd much rather have our kids avoid the constant stress I see it put her through.