Um… you can always observe the cat by opening the box, same as you can look up the stock value. Observing the cat doesn’t change it’s actual state. It only changes your knowledge of it. Same as value of a stock. No difference.

As for the definition, you hand picked 2 peices from that whole page. The first one when you read the example below doesn’t even fit your case, so you left that out.

Then you had to do mental gymnastics to make the second one fit. But it was a legal definition. None of this is a legal document, so it doesn’t matter. There is a reason that one is so low on the page.

But whatever. You want to consider stocks going down at any given second to mean you lost money in your head… fine. But when conversing with normal people, you will be hard pressed to find people who agree.

Something, something, can’t prove a negative… While valuable research, it doesn’t prove no harm is done. It can only provide evidrnce that the harm they tested for didn’t appear to happen. That is a kind of important difference.

That is basically Schrodinger’s cat. If you don’t open the box, the cat is both dead or alive. So you “could” interpret “lost money” as lost net worth. But if you read it litterally, it wasn’t money. It was an asset. You couldn’t spend it and it doesn’t meet the definition of money. Poorer, I suppose, because you could borrow against that asset, but not as much as before.

I very much agree on the don’t take the terms too seriously. They are just labels. Not entirely arbitrary, but still mostly arbitrary. That said, I do think we are due for a medical revolution anytime now. So I don’t think 200 years. But certainly plenty more time.

But if you don’t sell, did you lose money. My 401k goes up and down all the time. But I didn’t lose any money. Same with my house value.

At work, the boss recently asked everyone to disclose any voluntary use of AI. This is a very small company (startup) and was for a compliance thing. Nearly all of the engineering team was using some AI from somewhere for a large variety of things. These are top engineers mostly. We don’t have manager, just the CTO. So noone was even encouraging it. They all chose it because it could make them more productive. Not the 3x or 10x BS you hear from the CEO shills. But more productive.
AI has a lot of problems, but all of the tools we have to use suck in a variety of ways. So that is nothing new.

On the spectrum is short for on the autism spectrum. What that realky means is that there are several characteristics, all of which are spectrums themselves, which have a subset that is associated with autism. There is basically a formula for calculating a score that combines them and if it is in a certain range, they call it autism.

All and all, autism is a syndrom, which means they don’t know what causes it or even what it is. They just take a bunch of people who have similar symptoms and lump them under a syndrome so they can try and study it better. Same as IBS. Most likely there are multiple different causes that may very well be unrelated.

Meh, some people do want to use AI. And it does have decent use cases. It is just massively over extended. So it won’t be any worse than the dot com bubble. And I don’t worry about the tech bros monopolizing it. If it is true AGI, they won’t be able to contain it. In the 90s I wrote a script called MCP… for tron. It wasn’t complicated, but it was designed to handle the case that servers dissappear… so it would find new ones. I changed jobs, and they couldn’t figure out how to kill it. Had to call me up. True AGI will clean thier clocks before they even think to stop it. So just hope it ends up being nice.

Everything is always 5 to 10 years away until it happens. Agi cpuld happen any day in the next 1000 years. There is a good chance you won’t see it coming.

Meh, they come back up over time. Long term, the US stock market has only gone up.

I’ve noticed how poorly gpus are classified, and how it seems every intersting peice of AI software just has a list of gpus it can work on. So I can see customers just locking into one brand so they have less to memorize.

Have you seen the manuals today? 90% of the content for a product manual is CYA. In the next year or so they will all be written by AI.

Also, different people have different learning styles. A manual is just one. Many of us learn better by having something real to do, and learning by doing.

I have kids… so clearly yes.

Well I haven’t actually played it. But you start out in the center of a forest. You have a fire. You collect would to level up the fire. That opens more space in the forest… you collect things, level up things, find things… there is a random deer that attacks you at night or something. And some wolves at some point. But unlike raft, satisfactory or Minecraft it is a shorter overall play through. And the forest is different each time. So you play until you die or win. But it doesn’t let you save, which is annoying for me, even if a play through should only take an hour or so.
I am open to other ideas as well. We have put many many hours into raft. Also satisfactory, minecraft, tf2 (though my wife doesn’t like that one :) )

we have put many many hours into raft. Also satisfactory, minecraft, tf2 (though my wife doesn’t like that one :)). I am open to more options as well.

It’s a tough thing. I let him play on it because that is where the very few friends he has are. I did hold out as long as I could. He is autistic, so any interaction with neurotypical kids is good for him. But he can also be a pretty stringent rule follower, so I setup rules for interacting with anyone not a friend he knows personally. And he follows them. In general he doesn’t like playing with rando’s at all. So it works out to be “okay”. Not great. But “okay”. I just don’t want to make me an account, cause then he will want me to play all the lame money grabbing games with him and such.

All in all. If you kid manages to have social interactions with other kids without roblox. Then there is no need for it. Nearly all of the games on there are just money grab pay-to-play games.

I like to think I code better than the AIs. But I do understand how a comment with some hope in it seems out of place. It’s a shitty world.

This is an interesting idea. Not as much about billionaires, but about how regions race to the bottom to attract investment. Just like major sports franchises get insanely good tax treatment by moving or threatening to move theier team. Each city tries to give the better deal.

The idea that if the local gov doesn’t collect, the federal will should mostly put an end to that kind of thing. Ensuring that local governments get the funding they need.

Something like this, but just for business tax would be absolutely huge for US cities. It would also mean teams would go where the fans are, and businesses would go where the employees are.

I always ignore power savings requests. If they really can’t serve the population, they need to make more power. If we all turn down our usage to make it work, they won’t make more.

What about everyone buy a share of thier stock. Then sue thier board for ignoring thier fiduciary duty to the shareholders. Turning down business is bad for revenue… and the games that got removed probably made decent money all together.