supposedly capped-profit, though if a non-profit can create a for-profit or a capped-profit, I don't see why it couldn't convert a capped-profit to fully for-profit.
just in time for nobody to really care about programming because LLMs are so good at translation and all computer code and programing are a subfield of linguistics...
Programming runs along the back of mathematics. A field famous for spending centuries wasting time on silly games until those same silly games end up being the foundation on which modern society functions.
Even if LLMs completely remove the need for programming (a rather big IF), this is not time wasted.
Functional programming is a perfect pairing with AI-generated code because the type systems are generally more expressive than non-functional languages, which means the compilers can catch all sorts of errors.
> i'm saying something closer to: if microsoft merges with facebook, then they really are both trying to get bought by google's parent entity
So you said “literal alphabet”, because you weren’t talking about Alphabet, you were instead referring to Google’s parent entity, which is Alphabet? I’m a big fan of wordplay, but I prefer to use it to reveal truths, not obscure them.
Either way I don’t think that what you’re talking about is going to happen.
I'm neither obscuring nor revealing a truth becuase these events are ongoing.
and I'm being quick and lose with the use of words. facebook cannot merge with microsoft because facebook is a subsidiary of meta corporation.
but on the level of analysis i'm trying to think in, google's antitrust case agaisnt their government (which is done), microsoft's recent purchase of activision blizzard (which was almost undone but got through in the end) all have a hand in this.
who will win more out of this? microsoft? or google/alphabet??
facebook does seem like a smaller player, microsoft OWNS gaming now (specially after blizzard-activision).
but Meta is very insterested in gaming technology. so maybe they can also "poach" some talent now that openAI is all but publically bankrupt??
how long ago did Meta try to do their own crypto "Libra"? fact of the matter LLMs are chinese tech. else tiktok would have been successfully stopped. why did all this happen after chinese visit due to a trade union in south asia?
finally, I know of 3 giant corporations that have repeated the re-structuring which from my viewpoint was pioneered by google/alphabet. one is facebook/meta, and the other is a chinese company (alibaba?) I don't even know this which is ok because I am ranting on the internet in a buried discussion in a public forum
well, tuta's business model seem to boil down to "vendor lock in"
I say this as a paying customer, but I'll admit I haven't decided how I feel about the new plans (as announced together with the name change) so maybe my opinion is outdated
How do people with pen and paper operate on 10k pieces of data? Which is honestly a rather small number. There's a reason we use computers and why statistics accelerated after its invention.
There are two use cases: (1) when the computation is proprietary so the user can’t run it, or (2) when the user doesn’t even want to trust their own hardware.
I didn't either as a kid. I had one of those British Usborne Publishing computer books - one of their intros involved paper only with a long roll of instructions you wrote out and pulled through a cardboard "window" for the current instruction while you kept track of variables on a sheet of paper.
I soon figured out you didn't really need the roll and cardboard window, and could just do the while thing on normal sheets of paper.
Got to try it out for real on a borrowed TRS80 not too long after that though.
Yeah the "Trash80" was the first computer I actually used, the display model at the local Tandy Electronics store.
It was so very barebones with less than 2K free memory if I recall correctly. Later I found another local electronics store with a C64 which was bliss.
the more people out there that write, the less writtings by people are worth
scarcity never creates value, but it always incresases it
but also: the more pople have written, the cheaper text and AI bot training become
which makes me feel in a funny situation, the more I write, the better I get at it, but it also makes it simpler for AIs bots to learn my style and make it worthless by the inverse-scarcity phenomenon
This only follows if the only value/worth you consider is economic value, ie for trade. Which would exclude much of what people value: creativity, scientific knowledge, insights for living, personal growth etc. Obviously those have economic value in certain ways, but it’s not their only value.
How would one know they are getting better at communicating clearly and effectively? Compare with code or drawing where mistakes are instantly seen. Writing doesn't have that, and if you read back your own writing you always know what you were thinking. Who has got time to read what you write, from an outside perspective, and reply with what they think you said, without getting involved in whether they dis/agree or dis/like?
Maybe there's a website in that - parrot.me where you post and other people reply only with paraphrasing what you said back to you.
i'm just exactly at that "moment in life" where it's either 'make' money (i.e. collect it from others using trade) or recieve welfare (ask for donations, beg on the streets, call parents...)
I think cooking is a good analogy. You may have no desire to get into the food industry, but having cooking skills is good for you (and potentially those around you) regardless.
Writing has a double value though, it’s intrinsically valuable to the writer themselves to illicit better thinking. it’s also valuable as form of communication and collaboration.
Why should one care about "worth"?
If more people write then there will be more bad and more good writing. (good/bad in terms of personal enjoyment from reading)
If someone asks me if they should do something I do, I always lay out the pros and cons of doing what I do, and try to give them the questions whose answers they need to know in order to decide if they are the type of person who should. Why are there so many articles by writers telling other people they should be writing instead of telling them why they might or might not? I would never presume that any of my hobbies or habits is so universally beneficial.
> Why are there so many articles by writers telling other people they should be writing instead of telling them why they might or might not?
I guess it's a "better" title in a sense that it gets people to read (ie clickbaity)
A "pros and cons" article vs "here's why you should do X" elicit different emotions, which I'd argue, the latter is better for attention grab.
But I do agree with you though, when someone asks me for advices, I always try to give them context.
I also try to understand where the "advisor" comes from when I see radical advices out there. Even if I don't agree with it, at least I can understand the reason behind it.
