The first half is wrong too. GPS has nothing to do with satellites being able to see lots of things from high up. The whole thing is just nonsense that looks plausibly like an explanation until you try to decipher it.
Achieving simplicity by glossing over details is distinct from achieving simplicity by stating something incorrect.
Which one is more appropriate and/or typical will probably depend on what questions the five-year-old is asking, but I think it's reasonable to say the former is usually preferable to the latter.
I didn't even notice that bit (maybe GPT is a flat-earther?).
Something GPT discourse has been demonstrating to me is that I'm not usually a very careful reader. I apparently skim a lot. Or maybe I skim GPT outputs because I'm biased in my expectations already?
> Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content, I can be against that while still supporting it as a guiding concept.
Joe Rogan being on Spotify is entirely about limiting the availability of his podcast. They're paying him to not make his episodes available outside of Spotify.
For all the talk he gives, it was ultimately a matter of money for him. I respect JR for being genuinely curious about vast number of topics and asking right questions, but he of all people should have known that limiting access to his podcasts will hurt his reputation.
Not necessarily. He could have seen the writing on the wall with Google/YouTube and wanted a platform where he would not be censored ... and may have miscalculated.
I agree. He's said similar things before on his podcast, and I have little reason to not believe him.
People seem to forget that he had an ownership stake in the UFC, which sold for over 4 billion dollars. Also, an ownership stake in Onnit (cofounder), which sold for untold millions to Unilever. $100MM is a lot of money, but he was very, very wealthy before that deal. It's not like he was scraping by on Ramen noodles before Spotify came along.
I disagree. Anoyone that say any decision was only about one thing (in this case, money) doesn’t have a very nuanced view of the world.
It could be about fear (of being back at a place where he wanted food)
It could be about legacy (he wants to give the money to children, family, whatever)
It could be about money (I will have felt I’ve made it when I have a Yacht)…but he seems to be a smarter person than that.
It could be about not ever having to work doing anything he doesn’t want to ever again.
It could be about distributing is thoughts as far and wide as he can.
but just saying it was ‘ultimately a matter of money’ is a non-statement.
You're misunderstanding the objection. They're saying that if you move 1L of wine to the water side, the side you poured into will have fewer than 11L and when you pour 1L back the two sides won't have equal volume.
They haven't even necessarily changed the state of their mind. It's hard to accurately report your own subjective experiences in a measurable way. Maybe you're not sure where your pain falls on a 1-10 scale. There's a range of numbers you think might fit how you feel.
Before a placebo treatment, you pick something at the higher end. After the treatment, you think maybe it helped, so you pick something on the lower end despite feeling the same.
Maybe you even feel worse than you did at the start of the study but you've gotten used to a higher baseline amount of pain and you're having a relatively good morning compared to that so you report a low number.
This is about how your self-reports change, not necessarily about how your state of mind changes.
But the number you report for the level of pain is a thought in your mind; it is the state of your mind, or a summary of it. If you report a different number, your state of mind must have changed.
Sure, every time anything happens to you, your state of mind is different. My point is that the relevant part of your state of mind doesn't necessarily change.
If you report a different number, that means some things in your mind changed. Those things may or may not include the level of pain you're experiencing.
Let's take an example with a bit more objectivity. If you ask me to rate how long a tv show is on a scale of 1-10 and I know the show is 30 minutes, how do I turn that into a 1-10 scale? Suppose I mostly watch shows with 12-minute episodes. This is relatively long, so I give it an 8.
Later I start watching hour-long shows. You ask me again how long this show is on a 1-10 scale. Now I put it at a 5. I don't think the show got shorter, and I don't experience it as being shorter. I just changed how I contextualize the length of shows for a 1-10 scale.
It would be silly to say that watching hour-long shows is a good way to shorten the mental experience of watching a 30-minute show.
Considering most of the population doesn’t eat very healthy and rates of B12 deficiency are only ~6% I can’t imagine it would make much difference what your genetics are. Especially since many cases of deficiency will be the result of medical problems.
A large part of why it wasn't economical is that no one was being charged for the economic costs of carbon emissions. If combustion didn't have this massive subsidy, it wouldn't have been the more economical choice for so long.
Without dedicated lobbies paying politicians to ignore the problem, Republicans could have promoted conservative solutions like nuclear energy and carbon pricing.
Green energy could have been cost-effective decades earlier, leading to wider adoption and massive investment in research. We could have been building nuclear plants for the last several decades instead of pretending coal was still viable.
> Republicans could have promoted conservative solutions like nuclear energy and carbon pricing.
Arguably the two most important missed opportunities, imho.
We would still be left with transportation because battery tech advanced on the back of the consumer electronics revolution, but with cheap nuclear power and a functioning emissions market, we could accelerate the transition much faster.
If you limit it to languages you know, you're adding 1 or 2 bits of entropy. If you expand it to languages you don't know, you're adding a couple more bits but making it much harder to remember.
If you stick to one language and add a fourth word, you're adding 10+ bits of entropy (depending on the size of the word list you're choosing randomly from).
I don't know about legal responsibility, but this happened because the driver was working for Uber. Uber knew who the carjacker was before it happened, and they directed the driver to the carjacking.
This wouldn't have happened without Uber's involvement, and Uber is uniquely situated to be able to prevent this type of carjacking. If they're not responsible for the costs of their safety decisions, they should be.
They have more of an opportunity to prevent carjackings than the drivers do. For example, they could require enough information to create an account that if you stole a car using your account you'd be immediately identified and reported to the police by name.
The downside of this is that it decreases Uber's revenue. If Uber realizes the benefits of low security in their app, but not the costs, they have to incentive to take these or any other precautions. Making Uber responsible for the negative externalities of its service means that they have to take them into account when determining how to maximize profit.
I thought I'd remember this forever when I first read it years ago too. When I saw the headline on HN today, I couldn't remember what was unnatural about how we depict butterflies.
