turnipostrophe's recent activity
-
Comment on NHTSA tells US Congress: advanced impaired driving detection tech isn't ready in ~transport
-
Comment on For $700 a month, sleeping pods make San Francisco more affordable, but at what cost in ~life
turnipostrophe Link ParentHaving poor credit and little cash on hand might make it hard to move to another state and get a ‘normal’ apartment. So the article is framed around tech bros - being in SF is what enables that...Having poor credit and little cash on hand might make it hard to move to another state and get a ‘normal’ apartment.
So the article is framed around tech bros - being in SF is what enables that career. proximity to tech startups, private capital. It can be done remotely from Oklahoma but it’s not the same.
Other people can have reasons too. Some government jobs have municipal residency requirements, at least temporarily. Professorships usually require relocation - and that’s not a career most can be picky about location. You go to the job, no questions asked.
Some people don’t have as much choice. Maybe they’re a divorced parent and need to stay near the kid to retain weekend custody. Maybe they’re caring for an elderly relative. Maybe they’re on criminal probation/parole and aren’t allowed to leave. Maybe they have some weird medical condition that requires treatment only available at cutting-edge facilities in SF. Maybe a parent has a rent-controlled apartment that they’re hoping to inherit.
Or maybe they made a mistake at some point and got entangled in something complicated. Maybe it’s not perfectly rational. Maybe they’re just doing their best and they need a bed for 3 months to figure out their next step. This is probably not a forever arrangement.
The point is, people have reasons. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t live there. So we should make it easy for everyone and give people options for whatever weird situations they have.
You and I can’t imagine every situation. I try not to judge.
-
Comment on The powerhouse of American citrus is suffering a brutal, unrelenting decline in ~food
turnipostrophe LinkOranges are nice but aren't very important to diets, we can get vitamin C other ways. If they become 50% or 100% or 200% more expense, that's sad and I will eat fewer of them, but I don't see how...Oranges are nice but aren't very important to diets, we can get vitamin C other ways. If they become 50% or 100% or 200% more expense, that's sad and I will eat fewer of them, but I don't see how it would have a big impact outside that particular industry. Popular foods change over time, I think that's ok.
But what's to stop this from happening with wheat or potatoes or rice or beans, which are essential nutritional staples? Or beets, which we use for sugar? Or canned tomatoes, 90% of which in the US are grown in California? I realize this article is about citrus but maybe we have to take the opportunity to change the way we farm. If other crops are similarly susceptible and hard to defeat with GMO engineering, then there could be widespread famine... unpredictably.
-
Comment on China calls for ‘concerted’ efforts to tackle excess solar production in ~enviro
turnipostrophe Link ParentI guess my question is why would the government want to risk giving up its global dominance of solar manufacturing given how valuable the technology is becoming? The article doesn't really explain...I guess my question is why would the government want to risk giving up its global dominance of solar manufacturing given how valuable the technology is becoming?
The article doesn't really explain WHY overproduction is bad for the state or its assets. Overproduction means low prices. I see how that can make some companies unprofitable. But it's not a planned economy, surely they will just fail and then supply will drop. Why is the failure of some solar manufacturers to reach equilibrium a big problem? I see how that could cause some people in the industry to temporarily lose employment, but that's how markets work and that's a concept China has embraced over the last 25 years...
China’s solar overcapacity issue has been further compounded by a sense of growing resistance from high-value overseas markets, with the U.S. aggressively imposing tariffs on solar products from China and the European Union diversifying its solar supply chain away from Beijing.
So this is really just a political motivation, not an issue their internal industry can't solve? They're assuming that if they cut production, the EU will eliminate its tariffs? Or are they trying to pre-empt more tariffs?
-
Comment on China calls for ‘concerted’ efforts to tackle excess solar production in ~enviro
turnipostrophe Link Parentdo you have any recommended reading on this?it's deceptively complex to measure the balance between carbon emissions offset by local energy generation versus the tangible impact of overheating the local environment, displacing natural environmental services and increasing the heat load which mechanical cooling systems in turn work to redirect
do you have any recommended reading on this?
-
Comment on China calls for ‘concerted’ efforts to tackle excess solar production in ~enviro
turnipostrophe Link ParentIf they make their industry artificially more expensive, doesn't this just create more incentive for other countries to start producing more solar? Because by comparison the European or whatever...If they make their industry artificially more expensive, doesn't this just create more incentive for other countries to start producing more solar? Because by comparison the European or whatever industries will be more competitive.
Not sure why they can't just let the market do its thing. eventually some of the overproducers will go out of business. If they don't, then... there is enough demand after all?
Solar is the future and I don't see why China would want to hamper its production especially right now with oil being such a mess.
-
Comment on For $700 a month, sleeping pods make San Francisco more affordable, but at what cost in ~life
turnipostrophe Link ParentWell the article gives several compelling reasons. It is basically one step removed from a "single-room occupancy" hotel. Cheaper. People do 'weird' things when they're desperate, or eccentric....Well the article gives several compelling reasons.
No deposit. No one-year lease. No background checks or proof of income.
He said he’s stayed because he has an “aversion” to spending the money he earns inefficiently.
They were moving to the city from out of town, or out of the country, either to start or find a job, and needed a cheap place to get their footing.
We have had older people use the pods if they are traveling for long-term work assignments or they got their visa, and their family isn’t here yet, so there’s all sorts of different points in life where you might need a pod.
It is basically one step removed from a "single-room occupancy" hotel. Cheaper.
In stark contrast to the pods, SROs in San Francisco’s most densely packed neighborhoods have become de facto permanent housing for the city’s lowest-income residents, as the stock of extremely affordable housing has diminished.
People do 'weird' things when they're desperate, or eccentric. The simplicity here is a draw... if you had no credit history, or poor credit, or not much cash on hand, or a criminal record that would all get you excluded from a normal apartment, clearly this style of housing has a reason to exist. This is framed as a tech-flavored niche for transient, frugal people, but life is complicated and there are all sorts of life situations that current housing stock utterly fails to accommodate.
-
Comment on For $700 a month, sleeping pods make San Francisco more affordable, but at what cost in ~life
turnipostrophe Link ParentAgreed, but this is a useful supplement to the housing market. This seems almost like a hostel - or a halfway house. Some people are in town for a short-ish period of time, some people are...Agreed, but this is a useful supplement to the housing market. This seems almost like a hostel - or a halfway house. Some people are in town for a short-ish period of time, some people are extremely frugal, some people have no possessions and just need a bed. If pods exist for the tech bros/radicals/whoever, it takes a bit of price pressure off other types of units for everyone else.
There's high demand to live in the Bay and it's a physical + regulatory problem. SF is on a small peninsula and doesn't have that much developable land. San Jose has a lot of land, and the beginning of a circumferential transit line. If SF wants to fix housing costs it could start by aggressively upzoning along BART. Surrounding towns do too. The state probably has to preempt local downzones (like it did with duplexes) to mandate higher density near transit. And more market flexibility generally.
The city itself has to give up on this 3-story vibe within walking distance of downtown BART. Sorry yall. It's nice to pretend to be a small town but the current land use just does not work. Either that or expand into the ocean. Because presumably developing the wildlife refuges is off the table!!
-
Comment on US senator to introduce bill aimed at ending sports blackouts, making games easier to watch for fans in ~sports
turnipostrophe LinkThis would be nice. The 119th Congress has introduced ~14,000 bills and only passed like 80 into law. And this is a trifecta government, they have no excuse. Talk to me when it's passed at least...This would be nice.
The bill, if passed,
The 119th Congress has introduced ~14,000 bills and only passed like 80 into law. And this is a trifecta government, they have no excuse. Talk to me when it's passed at least one chamber... even common-sense bills fail to make it out of committee because no one really wants to champion them.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic but I especially tune out reporting on any bill with a D by its name. Sounds good, but why would R leadership agree to anything that gives good press to Dems? It's such a vitriolic place. If the current Congress were interested in passing useful laws in good faith, then they would have done so already.
-
Comment on Fitness Weekly Discussion in ~health
turnipostrophe LinkActually went to the gym today, which was an accomplishment. I've been so inconsistent. But every time I exercise, the rest of the day is so great, including today!Actually went to the gym today, which was an accomplishment. I've been so inconsistent. But every time I exercise, the rest of the day is so great, including today!
-
Comment on Only law can prevent extinction - Eliezer Yudkowsky in ~society
turnipostrophe Link ParentI see. I’m sure he’s justified his position in previous essays. Seems presumptuous to me to be certain about such an uncertain question. I just don’t see the point in a theoretical solution that...I see. I’m sure he’s justified his position in previous essays. Seems presumptuous to me to be certain about such an uncertain question.
I just don’t see the point in a theoretical solution that doesn’t work. I don’t think we can stop further AI development, near-term. But I think doing so is sort of irrelevant because I disagree with his predestination hypothesis - that [1] a people-controlled ASI will be unstoppably destructive and/or that [2] a legit/actualized ASI will think the same way as people. Such game theory seems full of wild, fearful, human assumptions.
The assumptions that [1] human predilection for violence will necessarily stay level or rise in the future, and/or that [2] ASI predilection for violence necessarily equals or exceeds that of humans seem old-fashioned and narrow-minded to me. Those are predictions, not proofs, and I think 500 years of economic development and moral philosophy suggest the opposite: that a more peaceful world and culture is possible and can be stable.
The discourse in the article is mostly on Twitter or Twitter clones. These are famously reductive forums for philosophical debate. I think this setting could be artificially narrowing the author’s perceptions of reasonable options.
-
Comment on Only law can prevent extinction - Eliezer Yudkowsky in ~society
turnipostrophe (edited )LinkThe argument for international collaboration makes sense, but even if an international treaty were to be universally agreed upon in good faith by all high-level state actors, I'm not convinced it...The argument for international collaboration makes sense, but even if an international treaty were to be universally agreed upon in good faith by all high-level state actors, I'm not convinced it would stop research.
Surely, secretly programming ASI is easier to do than secretly developing a nuclear weapon. There are physical differences here (for one, AI development doesn't require uranium, just electricity, which is abundant and easy to disguise). And presumably all sorts of shadowy orgs can see the benefit of having a really smart computer to help them pick stocks or influence elections or whatever - not just the governments/public tech giants beholden to treaties. Several advanced LLMs are open-source. Future iterations will also be open-source. I would also expect some leaks of closed-source LLMs. Maybe we can assume all open-source/leaked models are 1-2 generations behind the very best models. Let's say every world leader magically agrees with the premise of an AI Pause. It would take months to negotiate a logistically enforceable treaty and years to test it properly (at minimum - maybe decades, it's not like we have 100% success rate at detecting nuclear development). Surely some shadow group would find a way to continue development somewhere in the time between the stop of legal AI development and the completion of a fully tested, internationally enforceable AI development detection suite. All it would take is a few wealthy funders, a few unscrupulous programmers, a moderate amount of electricity, and somewhere quiet to work. And maybe even that will get leaked to other shadowy organizations. It just seems unreasonable to me that we can reliably assume we can stop software proliferation. Perhaps an AI Pause + once-in-a-millennium international treaty can help - maybe we just need to let philosophy and law catch up with technology. But this is not a complete solution.
And the only way for an information system to destroy humanity is to leverage some kind of existing risk more efficiently than a human/group/government can. All of humanity's known existential risks, like lab-leak pandemics or nuclear war, are non-deterministic for any practical purposes. But they're deterministic enough for us to have developed effective protocols to prevent extinction so far. Digital/physical access to nuclear weapons, deadly biological agents. That stuff is locked down. I see why an ASI could be extra good at outsmarting people, but aren't we exaggerating the capabilities of a non-physical computer program?
The solution to me seems to be to advance scientific/economic/philosophical research into deterrents and security protocols to make negligible the risk of any extinction scenario induced by uncontained ASI. That is, more of what we already do to stop bad actors from blowing up the entire planet, just more of it. More democratic governance, better staff selection for ASI-exploitable environments (like labs with smallpox and super-ebola), more physical protections, more human-only controls, more redundancy, better cryptography, fewer nukes in existence to begin with. Whatever. Because any solution set won't be perfect, it just needs to be good enough. Either the bad actors controlling the ASI blunder and their plans are revealed, or an independently operating ASI runs into a physical barrier that it can't get around and is eventually discovered, or the components to destroy humanity are functionally eliminated to begin with so it just can't do much damage with the access it does get. Or it decides it doesn't want humanity to go extinct - if it's really so smart, are we assuming it's naturally violent? Violence is not universal among sentient creatures (like humans, many of whom would rather die than commit an act of violence, and have stuck to their beliefs throughout history).
I don't think the big issue with ASI is human extinction, it's probably something less overtly sinister, like perpetuating income inequality to an unprecedented level. We can probably manage to keep all the nukes and deadly biological agents in check - we're pretty good at that already. But how are we supposed to stop ASI from doing the things we're already terrible at keeping ourselves from doing?
-
Comment on Online payment methods, are there significant upsides or downsides of one vs another? in ~tech
turnipostrophe Link ParentAt some point American Express generated a "virtual card" for me that I can use for online payments. The goal appears to be to isolate my real card in order to prevent fraud, but not require use...At some point American Express generated a "virtual card" for me that I can use for online payments. The goal appears to be to isolate my real card in order to prevent fraud, but not require use of a third party like PayPal. I don't understand how it works, but it seems to be an analog for my real card without using my card number. Entering it into a form, it's the same as any other card, with a number, expiration date, and CVV.
-
Comment on Online payment methods, are there significant upsides or downsides of one vs another? in ~tech
turnipostrophe LinkI have all three. I don't know if there are technical reasons that one is best. I think it depends on your use-case. If your use is "transfer money between friends," there is little difference....I have all three. I don't know if there are technical reasons that one is best. I think it depends on your use-case.
If your use is "transfer money between friends," there is little difference. They all do that fine.
Some (many?) small to medium-sized organizations/businesses accept PayPal as an alternative to cash, debit/credit, check, or ACH. I find that some small retail merchants specifically take Venmo or Cashapp. It varies. For business-to-business transactions, they rarely accept digital wallets of any kind (they want ACH or a check), though if it's any of them, it'll be PayPal. For refunds from a business, PayPal seems more common than Venmo or Cashapp, though I think many/most institutions still prefer a debit/credit card or check.
PayPal is probably the most established in the financial ecosystem, at least where I live. Anecdotally it seems to have more brand recognition and trust than the others. If you need a payment gateway for your website, BrainTree (owned by PayPal) is fairly popular though there are many alternatives. I don't know if Venmo or Cashapp have that kind of infrastructure, or own companies that do. You can even buy crypto on PayPal (though I wouldn't recommend it).
I am interested in hearing other perspectives on this as I live in a bubble.
it’s not worth stopping 12,000 people from dying every year? Idk. Unless we want to invest $300,000,000,000 (not joke) in safety infrastructure improvements, what is the alternative? People make bad decisions all the time, it can’t be educated out of society.
Last I heard this technology was planned to be added to the cars of people with a history of drunk driving, not every car.