I think it looks fun, but at the same time I really wish you had written the readme yourself and not using an llm. My view: if you can’t be bothered to write it yourself, why should I read it myself?
Just because he didn’t write the readme himself doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. The OP will have (hopefully) at least read through it before committing it and at that point the content is relevant and if the OP cares, accurate. You’re generalising if you think everyone blindly
copy pastes LLM output
Depends how you count “big”. Russia-Ukraine has had about 1 million deaths, and has completely changed how Europe thinks about security- it’s hardly a sideshow. Then again, not much territory has changed hands and there has been no regime change yet.
Not true, prior to 2022 February Russia controlled small parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, now they control them almost entirely, as well as good chunks of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts.
All were captured during their thrift store blitzkrieg. Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Mariupol were captured because pro Russian rats sabotaged mine defenses in Kherson oblast.
The casualty-to-death ratio in Ukraine is surprising for modern times, especially on the Russian side. Counting civilians, Ukrainians, Russians, I can see the death count being close to 1M. Partisan sources already put Russian combat losses at around 1.2M personnel. Ukrainian losses might be more than half what Russian losses are. The 1M deaths estimate doesn't seem outlandish.
I was referring to the quote “JPL would blow up a rocket every week, if the budget had room for it.” That makes it sound as if JPL can’t afford to follow the SpaceX strategy, hence my question.
I think you should find somebody to talk to (in real life, not HN!) You sound as if you have got into a rut and are not really thinking objectively. At least, you owe it to your partner to have an open talk about how you are feeling.
> it's actually within the realm of human possibility for the government and the individual to be aligned and want the same thing.
Actually, this is very hard because different individuals want different things. Normally you need a mechanism like the market or democracy to aggregate individual preferences. Expecting a dictatorship to do this well seems optimistic, and the full history of communist China doesn’t support the idea.
It _can_ produce slop if people stop thinking. I've also seen it do just fine, when people know when, where and how to use it. That's the part that frightens me, not the code it makes itself.
If you are seriously claiming the attack on Gaza was not a reaction to October 7, you need to explain why Gaza was not attacked in the 20 years prior to Oct 7, but was attacked shortly after it. If you think that Israel always intended to occupy Gaza, you also need to explain why they withdrew from it in 2003.
I'm claiming that October 7th was a pretext. If October 7th hadn't happened, they would have done the exact same thing with some other occasion (and they could always provoke some kind of attack from Gaza by killing a few people with no reason, as they have periodically done for the last 30 years).
And the reasoning for why now and not in 2003 is simple. In 2003, they had a much weaker international position - USA leadership was slightly less zionist, and the Arab states around them were much more belligerent towards Israel, and would have likely intervened directly at that time. Israel itself was also much weaker militarily - it has only increased its military spending in all the time since. And finally, a much smaller percentage of the Israeli population in 2003 was actively rooting for ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank, especially since the population had been less exposed to the violent anti-Palestinian propaganda, and that propaganda itself had been less rabid.
I’m in two minds about this, on the one hand I spent a week with acute psychosis after smoking weed when I was a teenager, so I really think people have to be more aware of the risks. On the other hand, I think it’s clear that this is not a perfect research design, and there are obvious possible confounds.
What about legalisation as a natural experiment? Has anyone done diff-in-diffs of US states and simply looked at eg mental health diagnoses or hospital admissions?
This is the tech version of "nobody I know voted for Nixon": FB's position in the US & Europe is very misleading from a global perspective.
In the Philippines, say, Facebook is the internet. Every business runs on it. People use it instead of news. Everybody uses Messenger to chat. You get free minutes with your phone that are specifically for FB/IG/Messenger.
Addendum to this: my filipina aunt is elderly and I was absolutely shocked at the amount of highly specific AI generated content seemingly targeted directly at her on Facebook.
Except instead of thirst traps it was a weird mix of outrage porn, religious imagery, and kids + pets being cute, singing or rescued from odd situations.
I asked a few questions of her to try and figure out if she like really grasped that it was AI, and she knew the general idea, but there's already so many filters and choppy edits of things it was honestly just too hard for her to make the distinction.
I had a similar revulsion watching older folks in my family scroll and scroll through obvious AI slop and AI ragebait. They can't even really tell it's AI, and they just sit there gobbling it all up, even though it's 100% nonsense. I mean, on one hand, who am I to tell people what media to like and consume, but on the other hand, I kind of fear for their grip on reality.
This is not Facebook but I have a young friend who gets her news on Epstein from tiktok. She is convinced they were eating babies. I do worry (a little) that she will go over the conspiracy theories deep end. I told her tiktok news was bad "mental hygiene" but she didn't get it.
this is a member of the general public who filed a report to the FBI. it carries about as much weight as a post on 4chan. you can see the sarcastic response from the FBI officer as well
it is exactly this kind of content that is so pervasive and misleading. the FBI get thousands of reports like this every day saying that george bush is a lizard, antarctica is full of UFOs etc.
Let me use the same sentence structure as above, with another example to highlight the absurdity of it:
"a member of the general public alleged angela merkel was receiving instructions from a russian UFO scientist that had contact with an insect alien spieces in alpha centauri, so its not impossible.
There is real, but weak, evidence the Epstein gang were eating babies. A lot of past conspiracy theories are suddenly seeming more plausible in light of the Epstein files.
The Filipino Facebook world is absolutely atrocious. You can't go 5 minutes in a public place without hearing a barrage of asinine sound effects and enhanced laughter emanating from these loud phones.
I don't see it as misleading at all. You're leaving out half the world and implying it's doing fine. Regular Facebook usage in Brazil is also non-existent and it's the 5th or so biggest Internet market. China doesn't have it. I'm not sure about India usage. So if FB isn't popular in the US, EU, China, Brazil, etc, that's an extreme amount of market loss.
WhatsApp covers a lot of the remainder. When I worked at a job with frequent contact with international guests, the vast majority of people from Africa and SEA, and a good portion of those from Latin American and MENA, were on it. In fact, the first time I'd heard of the app was from them. This was about 10 or 11 years ago. It might have changed since then, as Facebook has for us, but Zuck's empire (read: illegal monopoly) has been dominant globally.
As someone with a Filipina wife and who's traveled many times to the Philippines, your characterization is exactly correct. Facebook is the option, not just one option.
Interesting side fact: The Philippines is #1 in social media usage in the world.
Does FB data count against your data quota in these countries? I've been quite a few places where it's impossible to buy a sim card that doesn't give you free facebook and WhatsApp.
You can't use the real internet without asking your friends to pay for it.
The article provides absolutely no data to support any claims of a brain drain away from America, towards Europe or anywhere else. You’d think they would have found evidence if there was any. So after reading this, my prior on substantial numbers of researchers moving to Europe has gone down.
There is an obvious plausible reason why there might not be much brain drain to Europe: salaries are much lower there, because Europe is poorer.
Academics love to believe they don’t care about money, and Guardian readers love to believe that the US is doomed by its moral failings. I’ll believe both those things when I see evidence for them.
> You’d think they would have found evidence if there was any.
Maybe somebody closed all public scientific databases, all government science webs, and harassed or fired thousands of scientists. That would explain the lack of public scientific data.
> salaries are much lower there, because Europe is poorer.
Salaries are just a number and should be always taken in the context of coast of living. Europe is diverse, with poor places and rich places. You can live like a king with a worse salary in many places. In the more expensive ones you will pay more taxes, but receive more services in exchange. You will enjoy 30 days of paid holidays a year, and a very diverse continent to roam free on that time. You will enjoy also universal healthcare, affordable groceries, a near to zero expectation of your children being murdered at the school, and much more options to choose a political party that suits your own interests if you don't like the current situation.
Europe has many problems and lots of idiomatic and cultural walls, of course; but at this moment US just looks like a terrible place to live or even visit. The government is purposely doing all that they can to fleece every citizen and burn down the entire place.
Again, do you have any evidence, from any source - European or American, government or other - that academics are moving to Europe from the US in greater numbers than before?
The article provides absolutely no data to support any claims of a brain drain away from America, towards Europe or anywhere else.
There are no actual numbers for emigree PhDs. Government losses across all agencies are some 10900 scientists [0] or ~14%. Whether they retire, emigrate or no longer do science doesn't matter for the outcome.
reply