I appreciate the optimism, and it's definitely worth noting that this isn't the first or last time that the intellectual elite had freaked out about the lowering of standards for the garbage the proles are imbibing. But the hinge of this article is that cheaper access to mass popular fiction opened up a new market for great unknown writers. This was true because the medium in paperback encouraged, rather than undermined, the reader's interest in reading. You pick up a paperback in the train station before heading home... your attention span at least stays the same, or maybe gets longer as you learn to enjoy long form fiction. The paperback business model is still based on keeping your attention fixed on a something for a long time (you know, like "Stranger Things"). Media like TikTok are designed to turn you into a vegetable with an attention span approaching zero. So I don't think these are equivalent.
The paperback vs hardback is more like Netflix vs cinema. Tiktok / short form video is like newsreels in Roger Rabbit, where the 'toons make the content.
Huh. Is this kind of manifold something that a group of humans can now identify on sight and associate with a part of a DNA sequence? That's pretty spectacular. I have a friend who worked for years on AlphaFold, but wasn't aware that people had gotten to this level of confidence in visually identifying proteins.
My dream is forming a team of Tetlock-style superbiologists who can identify gene names on sight like Rainbolt, beat prediction markets on shorting biotech stocks, and smell out pre-cancerous cells like it's the final round of amongus.
Hahahaa ... I kinda love this, along with humans who can sit at a piano and play a song they've only heard once, or cook a complicated dish they only tasted once. That seems like the great Turing test... zero-shot humans.
But seriously, there probably are a few people who can see genes from proteins like that, faster than a whole datacenter of GPUs. Putting together such a brain trust could be invaluable.
Normally, I'd never attribute to intention what can be blamed on incompetence. Especially if the government is doing it. But sure, if I were the intern tasked with this job...
My personal guess is that only 10% of people love their work, and don't object to doing more of it - governmental or private sector. But the efficacy of those people is amplified in the private sector and nullified in government.
Source: I'm the guy everyone wanted on their group science project in high school, because I'd feel responsible for doing all the work while they smoked weed. I have brothers both in and out of government who work equally hard at similar jobs, and I see the dispatity of motivation.
Or you should realize that it's called work because it's not fun and you can still enjoy and appreciate it. You think only people with rare amazing unicorn jobs enjoy work? Go drive a cab. Bartend. Work long hours for a startup you care about. Yes you can complain it sucks, but that's why it's called work. Learning how to enjoy it is the same as learning how to be good at it - and better at life.
This luxury you speak of as if it exists in some jobs is completely in your own mind.
Put another way, the only thing preventing you from enjoying that luxury right now, whatever you do, is a shitty attitude.
Sometimes it just accomplishes paying your rent so you can do your life's work on the side.
You can have a life of the mind at work, or you can have a mindless job and have your life of mind in your off hours. It's almost impossible to have both.
What's wrong with working in construction? I worked restaurants and bars and taxis throughout my 20s, but my best friend worked construction. He's an amazing writer and the lead singer for the band I was in. He didn't hate his work. It's an honest job.
You want to work on your house and prep your food? I am the complete opposite. I would rather work on building a website, and eat in a canteen, than work on my house or my food.
Been building websites for 20 years, and writing code, studying math, building electronics since the 80s. Along with building homes from foundation up, rebuilding cars... Hedonic treadmill; individually, none of those things are enough anymore.
For me having to put so much time into riding a tightly focused job escalator is hell.
I can relate to this... I've been supporting myself for 30 years building apps and websites by the hour, for hourly wages, while working on my own years and years long projects on the side which make no money. I count 8 of them which took at least a year to code, and only 2 which made a small amount of profit. But I think this is actually a pretty great arrangement. I consider myself lucky to work in a kitchen all the time and still have the spare time to try building my own restaurant. I don't look at it as getting paid to waste my time, I look at it as getting paid to improve my skills, and to see the things that other people are missing, the gaps I might be able to improve upon.
Don't tell me you don't have time to do your daily web job and also work on your house. That's a first world problem if I've ever heard one.
>> Arrays cannot have holes. Writing an element after the end is not allowed:
a = []
a[0] = 1; // OK to extend the array length
a[10] = 2; // TypeError
If you need an array like object with holes, use a normal object instead
Guess I'm a bit fuzzy on this, I wouldn't use numeric keys to populate a "sparse array", but why would it be a problem to just treat it as an iterable with missing values undefined? Something to do with how memory is being reserved in C...? If someone jumps from defining arr[0] to arr[3] why not just reserve 1 and 2 and inform that there's a memory penalty (ie that you don't get the benefit of sparseness)?
Guidance towards correct usage: eg. If you allow `a[10] = 2` and just make the Array dense, the user might not even realise the difference and will assume it's sparse. Next they perform `a[2636173747] = 3` and clog up the entire VM memory or just plain crash it from OOM. Since it's likely that the small indexes appear in testing and the large indexes appear in production, it is better to make the misunderstanding an explicit error and move it "leftwards" in time, so that it doesn't crash production at an inopportune moment.
Transporting a minor for sex is illegal, regardless of whether they are considered of age in the jurisdiction they're being taken to.
But besides that, you're saying he ran a blackmail operation, which seems likely. If the girls he pimped out were of legal age, that's a lot less leverage to blackmail his targets with, isn't it?
> Your savings account is just bits on a disk, yet presumably it represents value that you worked for and which belongs to you to do with what you wish.
That's another example of the shared delusion, since yes, we tell eachother it represents labor and resources, and the market engages in allocation somewhat efficiently, and so the money is a pretty accurate representation of the value of labor and the value of resources.
In reality, that's not true, because the most highly compensated jobs are some of the least valuable, such as investment bankers, landlords, or being born rich (which isn't even a job, but is compensated anyway). Rent seeking is one of the most highly compensated things you can do under this system, but also one of the most parasitic and least valuable things.
Your savings account's number is totally detached from accurately representing value. It's mostly a representation of where you were born.
Value is subjective. Ownership is not. You're attempting to perform a sleight of hand by conflating the two.
It doesn't matter whether you personally find some creative material to be worthless, or you personally think someone doesn't generate sufficient value to deserve their bank balance. The reason it doesn't matter is that societies cannot run on an individual's opinion about whether other people deserve ownership over what they legally own. Because if it did, that society would quickly disintegrate into anarchy.
Speaking personally, as someone who once was on course to make 9 figures and now makes a low 6, I think it's sort of a pathology to spend your time worrying about how much less you have than other people. What matters is whether you can be recognized for your work and earn from it. I don't care that some people just inherited what they have, while I had to struggle as a taxi driver and waiter and minimum wage intern. That's annoying, but it's not as bad as living in a society where I can't capture the value of what I produce creatively. Having ownership of my work is far more important to me than money. But I have a right to expect that e.g. code I develop in my toolkit will remain my own to provide me an income.
Sort of? The contract doesn't mention that "value" and "price" are just as often negatively correlated as positively so, though, and claims the opposite (always positive correlation), hence where the shared delusion comes in.
> Someone can work very hard and save their earnings, only to have the value diluted in the future. Isn't that also a delusion?
Yes, it is.
It's one of my pet peeves about the cryptocurrency movement vs neoliberal institutional types. "Bitcoin is juts bits on a disk!" is always answered with "well, dollars is too!" To which the institutionalist can only say, "no, that's different." But really, it isn't.
What the cryptocurrency people get wrong is that replacing one shared delusion with another isn't a useful path to go down.
Unless you do substinence farming, you would not last a month without "shared delusions" in place to make sure farmers supply you with food, getting nothing in return except a promise that they can go somewhere to pick up something someone else than you made in the future.
Money isn't "only bits" it is also an encoding of social contracts
You use the word delusion like it also includes a) things everyone fully agree only exists in people's mind as intersubjective reality (no deceit going on really) and b) things you depend on for your survival.
You talk like getting rid of "delusions", as you call them, is a goal in itself. Why? It is part of human technology. (Just like math, which also only exist in people's minds.) Humans have had contracts since we were hunter gatherers in groups...
I would recommend Yuval Harari's "Sapiens" for you, you would probably like it. It talks about the history of "shared delusions" as you call them, as a critical piece for development of society.
> would recommend Yuval Harari's "Sapiens" for you, you would probably like it. It talks about the history of "shared delusions" as you call them, as a critical piece for development of society.
Already read it. Counter: read "Debt, the first 5000 years" by Graeber for, finally, a non- "Chicago school of economics" take on the history of trade amongst humans.
Just to be clear, I agree the money abstraction is not working particularly well. And that in the age of computers something that is more directly linked to the underlying economy could have worked better. But what needs to replace it is a better and improved "delusion", not a lack of it.
But, why? Regarding your farmer example, there are examples throughout history of farming that fed many without the involvement of currency or the paying off of debt. Take a look into syndicalized Spain if you ever get a chance (~1936-1939). Farms were collectivized and worked on by volunteers, distributions done by need with some bookkeeping to track how many people were in certain regions. Worked pretty well until the communists decided it needed to be centrally controlled and kicked out the anarchists!
Everyone always starts every future speculation assuming capitalism, or at least, currency. Isn't it worth challenging these core baseline assumptions? At the very least, the other ground is well covered, so we might come up with a little more interesting.
Currency (or IOU's, handshakes, pieces of green paper, bits on a disc, etc) is just an abstraction allows one to have choice.
The political systems that get built on top of that are just a downstream effect of the incentives that arise. Communisim thinking it would be good to centralize the control, capitalism thinking it would be good allow the incentives to rule, marxism thinking the labor rules, etc.
What I do for work is SO far away from any sort of tangible production, it makes sense to have a way to just straight from Work -> Food, rather than 50-100 trades so I can eat everyday. Again, the choice to to have to trade at all, or to trade exactly what I want, when I want, is enable by currency.
You can make the argument things shouldn't be so easy, that I shouldn't be able to choose to go to play pinball and drink a vanilla milkshake at 11am, but if that's possible, currency (in whatever form you want) has to exist.
So Russians who are dragooned into a war to destroy another country are victims of poverty, but Israelis who are conscripted and fighting a defensive war are not given the same benefit of the doubt... because they have businesses and families they have to leave for months at a time to defend their own existence?
Leaving aside your warped sence of pity, which one's a society you'd rather live in?
The point of this user's sole comment on HN is to imply that Israel is nefarious and that anyome working with Israel may be targeted for assassination (regardless that there's no indication this person was).
I don't think this post should be flagged or removed. There should be a separate classification for nation-state trollbots promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Killing a non-military scientist has no moral justification. I didn't have any ill intentions; I wanted to find the reason. However, updating news update answered my questions. Don't try to get your interpretation from my mouth.
>> Killing a non-military scientist has no moral justification
No one said it did.
You transparently attempted to create a completely unrelated conspiracy theory by involving Israel in a civilian scientist's murder. Something we know Israel had absolutely nothing to do with.
You could have asked whether he had connections to Iran or China, or Tesla or General Motors. You didn't just randomly pick Israel because you "wanted to find a reason."
Let me suggest that if your attempt to find a reason for everything begins and ends with Israel, you may be an antisemite. Scratch that, you are one. And your question didn't age well. And your self-professed interest in finding a reason doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny, either.
1/5 stars for a very weak attempt at agitprop on behalf of whoever sent you to write it.
Who the hell are you? You are not in a position to educate me, but I am happy to see that I am wasting $7,000 per post based on the Hasbara project. Continue trolling, I enjoy seeing that money is getting wasted :-)
The paperback vs hardback is more like Netflix vs cinema. Tiktok / short form video is like newsreels in Roger Rabbit, where the 'toons make the content.
reply