Unlurker|Replay|About
Richest 0.1% (8M) produce more carbon pollution than 3.5B (oxfam.org)
•
This is mostly a distraction because so much Carbon pollution is within supply chains, and therefore not wise to ascribe to individual consumers. The exceptions are driving and flying. 8M is more than the private jet users, I assume. Getting rid of ICE driving is going very well (outside fossil-Luddite America). Getting rid of flying is harder, but I fully support a rail bridge across the Bearing Strait. I'll take long sleeper trains working remote before I get to my old world vacation proper. This is good for circadian rhythm too.
•
Unhinged to think the bulk of the population can work remote on train rides with 0 demand. Dropping you from one frozen wasteland to another is not desirable. Have you been to Siberia or Alaska? If you're not flying you're going to have a LONG drive once you get to either side.
•
They didn’t say replacing 100% of flights or drives with trains, but the vast majority of trips people take would be popular enough to sustain regular service for those people. You don’t have to ban a thing for 100% of cases, there will always be outliers. My wife and I love driving deep into the wilderness. But still the vast majority of our travel is routes with heavy traffic, let’s replace those trips
•
Their methodology is extremely suspect in my opinion, as they attribute "shareholder emissions" to anyone that owns 10% or more of a company. Direct quote from their doc: > a person with a 20% share in a company has 20% of its emissions allocated to their shareholder emissions While shareholders obviously hold a greater degree of control over a company's emissions than a random consumer, assigning 100% of the blame for oil company emissions to the owners and 0% to people buying oil seems insane. Also, filtering only for owners that control a 10% or higher stake masively skews the results as large portions of companies are held by the general public in much smaller quantities via 401ks, pensions, etc.
•
[delayed]
•
> large portions of companies are held by the general public in much smaller quantities via 401ks, pensions, etc. Considering everyone is in index (or mutual) funds these days, do they actually own any shares in the underlying companies? I’m not sure they do? The fund surely owns shares of various companies, but the holders of the fund aren’t shareholders in the underlying companies. Perhaps this is a silly point to make, but the fund providers will show up as 10% owners if the general public has any significant stake in these companies.
•
If they take both supply chains of consumption and ownership into account, they are straight-up double-counting, unless they are separating opex and capex or something.
•
Inequality breaks capitalism. Spending so much money as the 0.1% spends in luxury makes no sense. To let millions die of preventable diseases, or even hunger makes no sense. The fact that as a society we let them do that is a failure that needs to be corrected. It is not their money. It is our resources that they are wasting. We need to better provide for our fellow humans even if that costs the rich a percentage of their luxuries. And let's not forget about the top 0.01%. The smaller the percentage, the more depraved the rich are, and the more they use their money to influence politics and increase poverty and suffering.
•
Actually with Carbon inequality, the problem is that driving and flying is not expensive enough!
•
Is that really a surprise? Most of the world bikes or takes a train. The richest 0.1% have fleets of taxis, private jets, etc.
•
Less than 1% of the top 0.1% own a private jet. There are roughly 25,000 private jets in the world, but over 8 million people in the global top 0.1%. You "only" need ~$7 million to crack the global 0.1%. By income it's around $600k/year. That's nowhere close to private jet money.
•
Virtually no-one owns a private jet because it just doesn't make sense to do so unless you basically live in one. A lot more people timeshare/charter one. Which I am perfectly fine with. People need to go places, and public air travel has been made consistently unpleasant, regardless of the flight class.
Qwenputer: A functioning, deterministic RISC-V CPU inside Qwen3.5 (divagr.com)
•
This is very clever. An inversion of tools. Awesome.
•
The real question is, do current training methods allow one to learn this when training on enough, say, assembly, or can the weights only be achieved via hard-coding? A fun and important thought experiment about the the space of nerual networks vs the image of current training methods. Most discourse conflates neural networks and trainable neural networks.
Uh here the gpu runs the cpu but you want the gpu to run a gpu? Or cpu emulation of Gpu? there's no free lunch here ever hence the cursed
•
I dare say that’s the joke.
Be more specific with criticism
•
This perspective -- that the burden of proof is on the experts to disprove the slop -- is exactly what I think is unsustainable.
Well I think the first big publication on this front was Anthropic’s Golden Gate Bridge neuron.
•
This was not a neuron. This was from a trained sparse auto encoder. In a few words, they found a way to map residual stream activations (so, a vector) into a few interpretable sparse concepts. They also had the converse maps, that translate concepts into activations. Golden Gate claude was obtained by artificially increasing the activations in the direction of the 'Golden Gate' concept. It was not neuron surgery.
It is a great example to refute the common misconception that LLMs are inherently non-deterministic. I see people repeating this a lot and being able to point at a CPU implemented within one is a very strong counter-example.
•
> It is a great example to refute the common misconception that LLMs are inherently non-deterministic. No it isn't. Realistically the opposite is true in practice and LLMs are really non-deterministic beyond simplistic experiments such as this in useful activities in production. Even with hacks such as "setting temp=0" (which no-one seriously does) to "achieve determinism", was one of the most common misconceptions ever propagated by "AI engineers". So using tiny slop experiments aren't really useful as a "strong counter-example". In fact this is a very weak one.
StackOverflow now gets fewer than 1000 questions a month (data.stackexchange.com)
•
This might be the saddest, non-family related thing ive seen in years. I love you stack exchange and all related sites. All yall need to keep learning
•
The question that a lot of people aren’t asking, these AI models were trained on human actual data, researches, answers, and books. Now AI removed the need to create those and people aren’t incentivized to make any new ones, the newer models say in a year or so will be trained on slop, piles and piles of slop, how’s their intelligence will be?
•
Fewer than 1,000? To be honest, even before AI, I'm surprised it ever got more than 50 or a 100 in some StackExchanges. It was on borrowed time especially after reading a lot about the moderator drama/issues.
•
Stackoverflow wasn't killed by AI, it's long dead because of those "Closed Question" bummbers. I've never seen an online community incentives vandalism rather than contributions.
I like that you can see a Covid bump in there and then it immediately craters lol
•
This was all too common across tech. I know of many products at the time that, say, had their usage quadruple in Covid (from a very large baseline) and nobody in leadership seemed to ask the question "is this permanent or just an artifact of people being stuck at home?" Clearly the answer was "no".
Right? It's not a very subtle spike, is it? Even then, if you erased the bump, the graph is pretty close to a straight downward-sloped line from 2016 to late 2022. It's kind of sad: I bet there was some excitement around the SO office. Is this it? Are we on the way back? Have people remembered that we're here and now they're returning? Alas, no, they weren't, and they weren't. That must've been rough.
•
“Has our strategy of being openly hostile to anyone asking questions finally resulted in the increase in questions we always dreamed of? Did our long term bet on alienating the community finally pay off?”
•
"Finally our audience of misanthropes has found us! This seems sustainable!"
Reddit is going the same way. I know many people who have got banned and never managed to get back on Reddit because Reddit is using some very invasive and persistent banned user detection techniques. Thing is, they use AI to ban people; over time, many false positives accumulate and not everyone has the time and energy to appeal bans. Slowly, more and more user accounts get banned, and even technical people I know fail to make a new account which lasts more than 3-4 days. But the Reddit management is seeing this as a "win," not able to see the consequence of doing this.
•
Reddit still has a place for very niche communities. To this day it can be the best place for a lot of things. But what's really clear for anything newsworthy or controversial or political is just how much Reddit is botted and brigaded and how easy that is. And Reddit seems totally unwilling to tackle this at all. But you can get something to r/news or even r/all frontpage with even a few hundred accounts. One example that comes to mind of Reddit enabling this kind of thing is the feature they added where if you click a user they can hide their history. You can still find it, particularly in the LLM era (but it doesn't even require you go to that far), but most people don't go looking because of that extra effort. It's a shame because the botting becomes really obvious. I honestly think all social media (including Reddit) needs to be required to make public what country an account is posting from, particularly when it comes to politics or anything controversial. My thesis is that you would see just how botted these areas are, how so many accounts with big followings are overseas and likely bots. You might be tempted to say "they'll just use a VPN". This is a solvable problem however because VPN IP ranges can and will be identified and should invoke more scrutiny. For example, streamers use this kind of thing to find people evading geogating. But also you can't hide latency. Issue someone a challenge and there's only so fast they can respond.
•
The Reddit banning algorithm is strange in its own way. In the past, I had tried to maintain a two accounts setup by policy. My main account (focused on camera, optics and photography etc) got gilded several times, with some posts appearing on their 'Popular' feed. I have used a secondary account(s) on occasions which engages in politics, tech, immigration etc. It has got flagged for contentious debates and I have been Reddit-banned once on one of them (for political criticisms and arguments against right wing; not my finest hour). Whenever I tried to create a secondary since that incident, it gets banned immediately by their algorithms. It is insanely invasive in how they are able to detect someone. But I am surprised they never touch the gilded one - even if the same device/app was used for registration. A theory to that feels there is more to than meets the eye in the way they use their filters to ban accounts. They are more lenient to older accounts (having Awards) or the ones which have got recognized in some way (appearing on Main Feed / Popular), but willing to discard the ordinary. Their user management policy is definitely intriguing
I stopped using Reddit not because I got banned, but because it has been steadily converted from the world's most popular forum platform to a trash heap of engagement hacks and shady practices. Moreso than SO, which was already struggling with existential problems before AI, Reddit did itself in.
•
Reddit has the most advanced AI system. I tried to post on r/showerthoughts several times over the past 10 years. And every time it deleted my post saying my thought wasn't original. I was wow how they would even know that, and this was pre-AI.
You're underselling it. It's less than in their second month of existence - and that has been true every month for the past year. For the last few months it's also lower than their first month. Stack Overflow, effectively, no longer exists. And we know why. It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users. No doubt they'll continue operating until there's no more value in selling AI data licenses, then they'll unplug the servers and unregister the business.
•
> It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users. The same thing that happened to perl.
> And we know why. It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users. That’s why it succeeded. It was not a forum, it was something new. Contribute a new question that was well stated and broadly applicable and get a response. You had to earn your answers. It wasn’t flawless, but it was good and so good it fed all the AI agents with good materials. It wasn’t a “help me!!!111!” site, it was an exchange. I put lots of effort into narrowing my questions, eliminating obvious answers by demonstrating the work I put in, and editted all my questions like an email to my boss. I was almost always rewarded with good answers.
•
When Attwood and Spolsky founded it, they commented on it being because Experts Exchange was hostile to users. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3656581 If StackOverflow is being considered hostile now it's big ... well, Google the three stages of enshittification I suppose.
•
Ah I miss the old days of expert sex change.com To be fair not really but it’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time and all it took was to scroll down to the end of the page to get your answer. Real 20 year ago internet there.
> I was almost always rewarded with good answers. Huh. I had the opposite experience. The better my questions got, the fewer responses I got. I stopped bothering, after a number of questions went answered only by me (after I found the solution on my own). It did reduce the insults, but that seemed to be the only gain that I got, for carefully articulating my questions. LLMs aren't perfect, but they don't imply that I'm being lazy, for not already having the answer, and they do give me an answer, instantly (and, like SO, the answer is not always the best one).
•
Exactly my experience. I ended up answering all my own questions on there. The site was useful for looking up weird bash syntax examples and stuff like that, but yeah the vibe sucked, the moderator culture sucked, you can say AI is cold and inhuman but it's there for you , it's not this ridiculous proving ground game you have to play when who really cares, you're just trying to see how to do something.
I loved it when I iterated on my question so much that I accidentally solved it before I got to posting. I have engaged with some younger devs who don't even bother turning the thought into a question. They make statements and expect you to do the work of inferring the question. Which I feel like they got from chatbots since it's faster and LLMs don't care if you make them jump through hoops. > The better my questions got, the fewer responses I got. There is a sweet spot of providing just enough detail but not too much in asking a good question. And even the best only “bat 300”. I've posted answers to my own questions plenty of times when I got no response. I hear you on the hostility. Also a lot of people didn't experience how bad things were BEFORE stack overflow. The first time I tried asking a question on IRC I got mocked so bad I logged out and never tried again. Most forums were like that. I gravitated to Ruby back then because it was one of the only forums people would be patient and empathetic with me.
•
> I loved it when I iterated on my question so much that I accidentally solved it before I got to posting I have repeatedly had this experience in trying to craft The perfect question for a consultant who was also a mathematics professor, in finding the essence of the question the answer becomes clear and I never even have to send the email
> And we know why. It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users. Uh, no. StackOverflow is and has long been one of the most hostile places on the web, I’m not denying that. But this unprecedented drop in activity is 100% because of AI. Their product is as obsolete as horse-drawn carriages.
•
SO's new-question rate peaked in 2014 and has been declining since 2017 (with a small, short-lived, early-COVID bump). LLMs have certainly hastened its decline, but it would still be in a pretty sorry state today even without them.
Well, I always found SO to be an intensely hostile community. Chat GPT doesn't ban you for asking which IDE to use
•
I always hate it when a person tries to "X Y problem" me. I have to explain that, yes, I'm looking at other options, but I'm also exploring this option and need to answer this specific question. People try to use "X Y problem" to feel superior somehow.
Formlabs Studio 1 $699 Resin Printer (formlabs.com)
•
This thing is all over YouTube, they really backed up the truck to the Influencer Club and started handing out the goods. Lots of people I like and respect have showcased it, like Applied Science, Jeff Geerling, among others. But although there's a lot of discussion about how large a discount this is from FormLab's 8 billion dollar printers, there is absolutely NO comparison that I can find to other brands! OK, it's a cheaper Bentley - but how does it compare to the Toyota or Honda that we can get down the street? There are loads of options with --on paper-- better specs for half this price or less.
Consider water-soluble resin, but always use 99% IPA to wash. First, dab with tissue paper to soak up drips, wash in used/dirty IPA, and then wash again in clean IPA. This will remove most if not all uncured resin. You should be able to hit within 0.1mm repeatability with anti-aliasing turned off. Finally, the UVA cure chamber must be able to kick off the resin. After 15min on each side, then wash the build with a hand cleaner. Place all PPE like gloves in a clear bag, and leave in the sun on both sides for 1 hour. "USD700" is almost double what a mid-sized Creality printer costs, and aftermarket 3M flex plate kits are about $30. Without a garage/outdoor/lab work-space people shouldn't buy stinky resin printers. =3
•
The water soluble resins smell even worse in my option somehow this was counterintuitive for me.
I've always found the best approach to a commercial product for the masses it to belittle them first and only appeal to the enthusiasts...
•
This is not a product for the masses, it's a niche manufacturing device that can cause severe health issues if not installed safely (exhaust ventilation, spill pad, etc.) and must be used with personal protective equipment.
Formlabs uses a proprietary resin cartridge... it's the paper printers situation all over again, the printers themselves are not that expensive but the disposable ink costs an arm and a leg. Don't go with Formlabs, support any of the open-platform alternatives. And also, be aware that these printers require some serious development work (you need solvent to wash away uncured resin (if you ask me, this basically necessitates a chemical hood... Formlabs will happily upsell the "Form Wash" for this for another 699). If uncured resin falls on your floor (which has happened to me a little too many times), boy is it a horror cleaning it up even if you have industrial grade solvents; FDM printers are easier and their "ink" is much, much less expensive by comparison.
•
I love resin printer, but boys the amount of post-processing is really off-putting.
I agree that resin cartridges don't handle the resin handling problem. Nitrile/latex gloves + eye protection + respirator are the absolute minimum for resin printing PPE. A long sleeve shirt wouldn't go amiss for rare flicked resin droplets. If you're not confident in your ability to prevent skin contact with resin, you shouldn't be doing resin printing.
•
Right. Just opening a bottle of this kind of photopolymer instantly sends DANGER signals from my nose to my brain (and my spine) causing my whole body to almost seize up. I cant believe reading some comments where people seem to be handing this stuff with their bare hands?!
 Top