And yet if you flip the paradigm entirely, you pretty much get coding bootcamps, which certainly don't have a great track record either. The answer is probably some more ideal balance between theory and practice, like Waterloo's CS program.
Any green energy project that isn't nuclear is a waste of money and resources. Nuclear is now being pursued in earnest by the tech industry itself. There's no problem here.
> Any green energy project that isn't nuclear is a waste of money and resources.
Nuclear's cost/megawatt is significantly higher than most other options. If anybody is reaching for nuclear it is because they are using up all available capacity through other means. Nobody picks nuclear for cost reasons.
Data centers are a pretty good match for nuclear because they run 24/7 and use a fairly constant amount of power. Solar is cheap in terms of amortized price per kWh but then you need some other solution to supply power at night or when it's cloudy, and the price of that has to be paid on top of the cost of solar.
Meanwhile nuclear costs what it does in significant part because the number of new plants is low which requires the cost of designing new reactors etc. to be amortized over fewer plants. But if you build more of them that changes.
I suspect that in the US nuclear is being pursued by the tech industry due to the current administration, if Biden were still in the White House, the tech industry would be pushing for offshore wind and solar panels.
Nuclear is expensive and requires red tape and a long time to bring online, but the real benefit is that it can deliver power consistently all day, unlike wind and solar. I think the ideal future includes all of these plus better storage capabilities.
This is a very primitive, pre-genAI type of thought process.
People like you can only see copyright infringement when it's blatantly staring you in the face, like Studio Ghibli style AI images. Why is it obvious in that case? Because we have a large enough preexisting sample of Studio Ghibli style frames from anime to make it obvious.
But move closer to zero-shot generation, which anyone with a modicum of knowledge on this subject understands was the directional impetus for generative AI development, and the monkey brain short circuits and suddenly creatives who want to protect their art can go fuck themselves, because money.
You may not find common cause with multi-millionaire artists trying to protect their work now, but you certainly will in hindsight if the only fiscally-sustainable engines of creativity left to us in the future are slop-vomiting AI models.
Literally the founder of Y Combinator all but outright called Sam Altman a conniving dickbag. That’s the consensus view advanced by the very man who made him.
This seems like misinformation, are you talking about how Sam left YC after OpenAI took off? What PG said was "we didn't want him to leave, just to choose one or the other"[1].
That says PG thinks Sam is clever. I don't think there's any moral judgement there. The statement I posted suggests PG likes Sam and would love to keep working with him.
Mine was horrendous scroll jank in response to a moderate amount of highlighting in Notes. Mfs trying to harness AI and they can’t even render text properly… in 2025.
> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian
Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think?
And it's not like the persecutors ever give you the full story. For example, the reporting on Meta ending DEI didn't want you to know their rather logical view of the situation (discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics is wrong). What fraction of people actually believe in giving a boost to certain candidates purely on the basis of race? Certainly not enough for the persecutors to allow that argument to be broadcast widely.
> Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think?
Sometimes it can be. More than one thing can be dystopian.
> It does not provide for or look after its citizens in the ways other developed countries do
It's worth asking why.
> NATO nations have cut back on troops and military hardware since the Cold War. But Europe has cut far deeper than the US. Defense budgets have become a pot that could be raided to fund more pressing priorities, such as treating and caring for aging populations. As a result, much of Europe’s military has become, in the view of some US defense experts, a “Potemkin army” that is ill-prepared to wage and win a prolonged war.
If we take a look at the % of US forces stationed in Europe, and assume all of them are there only out of the goodness of the US' heart to protect Europeans, and subtract them from total US military costs, it isn't even a drop in the bucket. It's less money than the Pentagon doesn't know what happens to.
(This only covers the running costs; even an unfair assumption that the US would need less F-35s and troops if they weren't deployed in Europe, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the $916 billion yearly budget).
That’s not a sensible analysis, given how NATO works. It isn’t even difficult to see how misguided that thinking is because you could simply recall the mounting hundreds of billions we’ve lately been sending to two non-NATO nations.
> It isn’t even difficult to see how misguided that thinking is because you could simply recall the mounting hundreds of billions we’ve lately been sending to two non-NATO nations.
Which the US is doing only to protect European country and wouldn't have done it if it were anywhere else? Strongly doubt it. Also it's important to clarify, the US isn't sending "hundreds of billions" to e.g. Ukraine. It's sending material worth that much, which them it replaces (and sometimes it would have had to anyways, in the care of expiring ordinance or obsolete stuff) by paying American companies.
