This. First, the employer has to worry about the returns from which they draw some money to pay you. And for you to even get paid for doing a job, the company has to fear that you won't do it if you don't get paid - in most cases, it's not from the good of heart, but an implicit or explicit threat made by you or on your behalf by other people.

The current problem is automating yourself out of the job. You creating value compounds but as soon as you’re no longer needed the fruit of that compounded value is cut off from you.

Well if you want to spend your days doing something trivial enough to be automated I guess that might be a concern.

I mean I'm not sitting around doing data entry. If I'm automating something it's not my job it's someone else's. Ad a lot of the time that someone else really has other stuff they'd rather do as well.

They don't, and as a result most don't get much if any.

For them to survive, they have to have got returns from somewhere - maybe welfare, inheritance, a day job. Someone has to have worried about the returns so they can be free from thinking about it.

And if you don't worry about returns, you will let someone extract it ruthlessly from you, that you contribute millions of value to a company that gives you nothing back. This may be fine to you at some level, but many of the people who you allow to exploit you use the resources they gain as leverage to further their selfish ends, like a certain richest man in the world who helped a certain politician buy an election at the most powerful country in the world.

>one almost verbatim same radius which pissed off apple

So this is what they decided to do? Use so many different rounded radius variations that competitors don't know which one to copy?

5x improvement of energy efficiency in just GPUs translates to more like 50% reduction of power usage, with is significant but doesn't warrant a 80% reduction in pricing. Especially since Nvidia will charge more for the same card - they have been pricing things pretty aggressively.

And on the DC side they will be building to a power and heat budget. If Vera Rubin changes the power density per rack equation that may have some impact. But thinking rationally if the flops per kw-sq ft are lower than Blackwell, no problem. If they are a lot better then even if the kw per sq ft is higher you can just space the racks out a little

This is why we need unions. You can be fired for chewing gum too loudly or just being around when the boss is pissed off. We need to band together to defend each other against malicious employers.

With regards to the 100 cases per year. I was using UK statistics for false rape allegations. Ironically, men are more likely to be raped by other men than be investigated for a false rape allegation.

> Can't people take precautions on all these things that threaten one's reputation and livlihood?

Of course! But if their "precautions" mean they are also being nasty to people I'll be happy to call them out on it.

I don't think denying a ride to a stranger in a sketchy situation counts as being nasty. If it's not false accusations, it could be a knife at your throat or whatever (your example about male rape definitely doesn't help your case here).

Let's have a thought experiment.

If we take the prevalence of false accusations be several thousands a year (the lower end of the estimate), it would be between 1 to 2 incidents per 100k population in the US. For your UK statistics, I can't find a citation either - in terms of prosecuted cases you're perhaps right, again the buck doesn't just start with prosecution. Reported rape incidents can be up to 70k and prosecuted incidents is less than a tenth of that, and it's probably similar for false accusations - what I can find is an estimated prevalence of 3%, so in the UK it would be up to 2.1k among reported (not necessarily prosecuted) cases.

Incidentally, 1 to 2 per 100k is in the ballpark of rape statistics in low-crime areas, such as Hong Kong, Japan or Singapore. So the risk of rape in those areas is similar to the risk of false accusations in the US.

With this in mind, if a woman denies a ride to a strange man in Hong Kong in the middle of the night, does that mean she was nasty to the man? If you say yes, it's probably not the prevailing sentiment in those areas; if you say no, perhaps that can point to some cognitive bias.

For unions, sure let me know when you're able to set them up. Similarly, you can tell women in Hong Kong or Singapore to not worry about rape because you're going to do something to make the world better for them. But another important nuance is that unions won't help as much as you think they would. In the case of false accusations of pretty much anything, a lot of the damage is social, for people who are not already powerful; rape is an especially touchy topic that you would find fellow union members, especially female members, and sometimes spouses, to be less than sympathetic.

You need to develop some empathy and learn that false accusations can destroy lives and families. You have no right to force someone accept even a 1% chance that something like that happens, even if it's less prevalent than assaults.

they didnt say false accusations dont happen, or that they arent harmful, or that anyone should be forced to do anything.

you read what you wanted to read, instead of what was actually written

It looked to me like RajT88 was participating in a rebuttal of SoftTalker's comment. I don't think that interpretation is "reading what you wanted to read". The place you put a comment has implications for what you're arguing.

The suggestion I was "forcing" someone to accept a risk is reading what they want to read into my comment. I cannot force anyone to do anything, I am mere lines of text on a screen.

Whether I was rebutting their comment depends on the subtext you think their comment had. There could very well be a subtext for such a well worn talking point.

> The suggestion I was "forcing" someone to accept a risk is reading what they want to read into my comment. I cannot force anyone to do anything, I am mere lines of text on a screen.

That meaning of "forced" is very unreasonably literal. The meaning of "forced" here is that it's the only socially acceptable option, not that there's a gun pointed at them.

> Whether I was rebutting their comment depends on the subtext you think their comment had. There could very well be a subtext for such a well worn talking point.

They were saying it's reasonable to refuse the trip because of their false accusation worry. I don't know if I would even call it subtext, it seemed to be pretty upfront.

The subtext of your comment, if any, seemed to be that it's not reasonable to refuse for that reason.

I'm not 100% sure if that's what you meant, but whether it means that is entirely based on you. It's not based on their subtext. You should just tell us if that's what you meant.

Edit: In another comment you put> Nailed it. The amount of bandwidth men should dedicate to this is far lower than what women should be dedicating to it in terms of absolute risk.

I bet SoftTalker already does dedicate negligible bandwidth to that issue. A stranger coming up to you and asking for a ride is a very rare occurrence.

You can refuse a stranger a ride if it feels off to you.

If you are telling a personal anecdote to threadjack a topic, there are several potential reasons why - if that is what you are trying to do. It is open to interpretation as to that poster's intent.

I have my own opinion having read dozens of discussions like this. YMMV.

> If you are telling a personal anecdote to threadjack a topic, there are several potential reasons why - if that is what you are trying to do. It is open to interpretation as to that poster's intent.

So whether you were rebutting their comment is based on the reason they "threadjacked", and not the contents of their post? That means no rebuttal for what they explicitly said. And what they explicitly said was refusing a ride because of gender. Okay, that clarifies things. But it would make everyone's lives easier if you made your implications more direct from the start.

So could a car accident, but you still drive. There are lots of risks in the world; they need to be assessed by their likelihood x damage.

It may be surprising to you, but I don't drive (I don't live in the US, but even when I did I didn't really have to), and there was a period of time I resorted to not even taking taxis because a crash in those times would have been much messier than just myself dying. But my own private life aside, driving, to many people, is a necessity, sometimes even for survival, while lending a hand to a stranger, however nobel that may be, is not.

you still can think hard but you can offload some parts to LLM when you're stuck. Then you can leave space for more hard-won inspiration. When you're faced with a high-stakes decision, evaluating all sorts of possibilities, it's really easy to maximize the utilization of your brain, so in those cases you have plenty of chance to think hard.

I think what you say would have be fair if Elon's and his fanboys' stance was "we need more data" rather than "we will be able to scale self-driving cars very quickly, very soon".

There's a somewhat niche game publisher that had very gamer-friendly practices. At some point they released older games for free, and for new popular ones they were relatively friendly to mods. Now they only operate a lootbox game. The sad reality of commerce.

> I have to learn their processes/tools/etc from reading the docs. > So I'm probably coming in at like 20% better than junior.

There are firms that take that to heart, and there is indeed a lot of truth in it. A large amount of skills and knowledge just aren't transferable when switching jobs. But I think it's not hard to create more than 20% of the value. And even if it really is 20% of the value, the profit generated from the work might actually be more than the salary gap anyway, and the 1-year growth curve might be faster for a senior than a junior.