Because they can't as a result of private equity firms and hedge funds buying houses for investment purposes. Without legislation, people are going to be renting for the rest of their lives like modern day serfs.
Main reason is due to purging of β-amyloid by the glymphatic system, which seems to happen during deep sleep. High β-amyloid plaque build up is correlated with Alzheimer’s disease.
> A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant.
How does that change the social dynamics of mating? Is increasing promiscuity a good thing?
> A person can choose to live hundreds of miles away from their family yet still visit them every weekend.
> A person can choose to move to a new country, halfway around the world, and still have their parents be > able to see and converse with the grandchildren every night.
Why did this person choose to move physically away from their tribe? To slave away at a job they don't care about? Would they have chosen to move away if the tech to communicate long distance didn't exist?
> I can choose to talk to a person who speaks another language and have a computer translate for us.
Is it good to use translation tech as a crutch and not emotionally immerse yourself in the culture?
> I can choose to have my tooth decay treated without experiencing horrific pain.
Why do you have a poor diet? Why do you consume so much sugar? Why don't you brush and floss?
> A compound fracture is not an automatic sentence of death or lifelong severe disability.
Do you take more risks because you know that a fracture won't end you since medicine can heal you?
It seems to me that technology is often used as a band-aid solution. Or it enables certain types of behaviors that when proliferated on a societal level can have drastic consequences.
People often confuse society as a whole with individual choices.
An individual can independently choose to brush, floss, engage in less risky behaviors, have a good diet, maintain a health weight, etc. It's not hard.
But when talking about society as a whole, that breaks down. Society is going to have a percentage of people who don't brush and floss. Who aren't managing their diet and weight. Who are taking risks beyond what you find acceptable.
When talking about society as a whole, it's a dead end to just say, "well people should just be better". It doesn't work that way, and it certainly doesn't fix anything. Society will always have people who have a lot of sex. Making it safer is better. Society will always have people who have teeth issues. Not having them die or be in massive pain is better. Society will always have people who can't maintain a healthy weight. Making it easier is better.
Of course, what you're saying is obvious. I'm just asking questions to get people to think about the ramifications of technology. Society is the sum of all the individual choices people make, which are influenced and amplified by technology, either for good or bad.
> An individual can independently choose to brush, floss, engage in less risky behaviors, have a good diet, maintain a health weight, etc. It's not hard.
Maybe I'm one of that percentage, but I wouldn't describe these things as not hard.
But the problem GP highlights is that of a ratchet - those changes start as choices, but then become requirements. Key example:
>> A person can choose to move to a new country, halfway around the world, and still have their parents be
>> able to see and converse with the grandchildren every night.
> Why did this person choose to move physically away from their tribe? To slave away at a job they don't care about? Would they have chosen to move away if the tech to communicate long distance didn't exist?
That's the ratchet in action. Progress in transportation at first enabled people to pursue new opportunities, new living arrangements. But as more and more people did that, everyone started relying on others being able to travel long distances fast. It became a social expectation, and a professional expectation, and that's how in a few decades, we went from cars being generally-available, to car culture, urban sprawl, hour+-long commutes, and constant gridlock. Problems we can't extricate ourselves from now.
The same mechanism is at play with every new invention. Even the humble clock is something you need to have, because you need to sync with people in time to minute precision, because everyone else has a clock and expects this too. Same with phones and bank accounts. Smartphones, Internet, credit/debit cards are just finishing this process too - arguably this is held back by the governments, who need to service everyone, including the elderly, but wait a few more decades for those elderly to die, and we'll see governments closing physical offices and removing in-person processes to cut costs, at which point smartphones (or their future equivalents) and Internet will become necessities.
Another, more controversial example: all the efforts to make women equally able to pursue careers and have equal pay - they started as clearly beneficial, offering choice to people who did not have it before. But couple decades down the line, the market adjusted to the workforce effectively doubling, and now single-income households are increasingly impossible. And so, at first, women could choose to work, but today, they have to. There is no choice anymore. This becomes a huge problem when children are in the mix, as in an average family, neither parent can become a stay-at-home one. Instead, children get sent to daycares and kindergartens, which of course cost money, further locking both parents into their jobs, and because child care facilities are group spaces, kids constantly get sick, creating huge logistics hassle for parents...
This is not to criticize women's right movements here - only to point out that the choice won was temporary, and the society/economy forcing a two-income model creates a whole set of other problems we're still figuring out how to deal with. Hopefully one of these days we'll figure out how to have equality while supporting either of the partners to be the stay-at-home one.
That's a big part of where the market ate the sudden surplus when two-income household became a widespread thing. That's what markets do: if people, on average, have X$ more disposable income, the prices of everything will adjust until X = 0.
The "on average" in the sentence above is key - those whose surplus of money was less than X end up worse off.
But who bears the cost of this betterment? I certainly don't want to be responsible for paying a cost for someone else's bad choice, esp. if the bad choice gave them an advantage or "profit".
That's why all individual choices should have individual consequences, and only under some circumstances where there's a prisoner's dilemma should there be a method/regulation to enforce cooperation.
> I certainly don't want to be responsible for paying a cost for someone else's bad choice
Then, in some cases, you'd prefer them dead/permanently disabled/permanently in pain/etc. Which, I guess is a position to have, but not one I'd like to take. It sounds like I'm exaggerating here but I'm not.
Remember, the theory in the posts above is that technology makes people more likely to take more risky behaviors. And I'm arguing that there will always be a significant percentage of the population that engages in risky behaviors (for whatever your definition of risky is), and we should have technology to help.
> esp. if the bad choice gave them an advantage or "profit".
Not everything is black and white. We are allowed to pick and choose here and limit this from happening. Most examples we've been talking about involve an individual having to use some communal system, like a healthcare system. That isn't an "advantage" or "profit" that the individual is abusing.
Did you pay for the roads you drive on or your freedom others died for? Do you pay for insurance? It’s kinda hard not to indirectly pay for others bad choices.
Okay. The reason I find that heading painful to read is it seems to miss the entire point of the quote. The line is said in the context of a world where everyone already is defining themselves by their jobs, possessions, etc. it’s not descriptive, it’s prescriptive. So it can’t really even be wrong.
My memory of the book is it’s fairly philosophical, getting at modernity and the human condition. It’s quite traditionally masculine and violent and I get that that turns a lot of people off. Love it or hate it, quotes of it probably don’t belong in a LinkedIn-style “here’s some advice kids” article.
Moreover, it’s just too easy — low hanging fruit, e.g.
Tyler Durden said “once you you lose everything you’re free to do anything” but that’s not right because many activities are expensive and you’ll need money.
Am I the only one who doesn't want this dystopian future? "Designed for living in the moment"?...no, this is definitely the exact opposite of living in the moment.
I feel like this is an epic joke. Except the joke is on all the suckers paying $1k for essentially the same phone, but wow, now with a usb-c port. Please Tim Apple...take my money faster. Even better, please strap it to my head so I can be even more disconnected from other people.
Do you really need to upgrade your 3 year old iPhone if you think about it? Those are still quite fast and can do everything you need. To me it seems like a waste, but you do you.
Even upgrading from last years phone would be worth it for the ability to record spacial video. I want to start capturing 3D vids as soon as I possibly can.
It's just marketing - there are apps where you can already record spatial video such as record 3d. They didn't mention any improvement to lidar. You can even use any truedepth iphone if you are Ok making 3d video using front camera.
I have a 4 year old phone and I don't see anything worth upgrading. USB-C, yay! But I already have a Lightning cable at home, is that worth hundreds of dollars?
I plan on buying one, and I have a 3 year old android phone. I would have upgraded sooner, but I basically wanted an iphone 14 but with USB C so I don't have to get new cables. Now I can get that.
step 1: save up money and pay off debt
step 2: sell all your possessions except laptop, clothes and a few other things
step 3: find remote job
step 4: move to SE Asia, join an expat community, enjoy a low cost of living lifestyle
Failed at step 1, stuck in a remote and non-technical community with limited to no job prospects. Can't compete with the remote job market.
Its like I crash landed on a remote planet and my space ship is irrevocably broken. I feel like the only solution is to accept I will never make the money I used to, the life I knew is over and I'm just never going to get it back.
It's heartbraking. It keeps me in bed never wanting to leave, it has furthered my intense depression and anxiety. You cannot escape PTSD like this.
Your words have a lot of power. You become what you repeatedly say about yourself. If you just changed this one thing, not thinking negatively about yourself or the future, it would change your entire life. You have a lot more power than you think you do. Focus on the things you can change right now. Look around your room. I'm sure you can find at least one thing that needs fixing. Be blessed internet friend.
Been working on this for 3-4 months. Summarizes YouTube videos and synthesizes podcasts that you can listen to. Also has transcripts so you can follow along. Click on the timestamp to jump ahead.
Summarization target percentage is set to about 50%. So if you want to listen to a Lex Friedman podcast, this can save you half the time.
Podshorty does something kind of similar, but it takes any YouTube link, summarizes it and generates a podcast using the voices of the original speakers. Also creates transcripts so you can follow along. https://www.podshorty.com
This is copyright infringement, not ok to be using and monetising off of someone else’s voice. Over the next months there are plans for way tighter controls on this so I’d expect that the “using the voices of the original speakers” feature will not be available, unless a monetisation method is developed.
Actually, according to US law, it doesn't appear to be copyright infringement. Do you have anything to back up those claims?
According to Butler v. Target Corp., it was held that although lyrics to a song are copyrightable, the underlying voice is not. As such, there is no copyright protection available to the infinite number of words or phrases a person might utter in their distinctive voice.
Additionally, the synthesized audio can be considered derivative, as it transforms the the "audio" into something entirely different than original, and so falls under 17 U.S.C.A § 103.
So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say there are plans for tighter controls. Care to back that up?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is my personal opinion.
Sorry what is exactly your claim here? That it is legal to use and monetise off of someone else's voice? Using Morgan Freeman's or Joe Rogan's voice for example to host your podcasts?
I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of legal gray area when it comes to AI-synthesized voices and copyright. It still remains to be seen how the courts end up ruling.
What's the difference between using an AI voice and Bill Hader or Jimmy Fallon doing a celebrity impersonation on his show and monetizing that?
The barriers to entry are so low (for now), and everyone is scrambling to build a moat.
The AI image generation space has hundreds of players. Audio has dozens.
One likely outcome is that big tech will come to each of the "successful" companies with close peer competitors and offer to buy them. If they say no, they buy their competitor. Or build it internally.
You'll have to run really fast and hard to survive. I think it's totally doable, though, and this is a very interesting attack gradient.
Started a company to build chip testers. Didn't go anywhere, but I had a ton of fun doing the hardware and software. One specific example is writing a Linux driver to interact with your IP block running on the FPGA. Got to see what happens on the other side of the kernel.
