If you play poker, it is the equivalent of pushing 'portions' of your bet out at a time. You push the portion, observe their face and body language, and maybe push the rest.
The 'that was for my assistant' is just something they say to explain away the earlier quoted price. They are pretending that what they said wasn't the quote for this conversation, it was for another, different conversation, between the salesman and their assistant. This only works when the assistant is not in the call.
Is that supposed be a lot? That article states that all US data centers combined consume 450 million gallons a day, equivalent to 90 towns, which does not sound like very much.
I'm not the one here making assertions, I'm asking questions of the person making claims. I'll leave it to others to judge what is 'a lot' or 'reasonable'.
I don't think 'anyone who thinks X is Y' is a good basis for discussion, which is the real point.
> Approximately 80% of the water (typically freshwater) withdrawn by data centers evaporates, with the remaining water discharged to municipal wastewater facilities.
I would guess that a dislike for reduce overlaps with a preference with imperative languages.
Filter and map are easy because you can make more assertions about them without inspection:
- they take a list-like as input
- they take a function as input
- they return a list-like as output
As opposed to reduce:
- it takes a list-like as input
- it takes a function as input
The output type is not fixed, and its behavior is not fixed. If you pass the right function, reduce is filter, or map, or something else we've never seen.
I'd have to be pretty sure I could use the hardware forever without a login for me to let it near my systems. Anything with firmware or a security footprint would not qualify.
I might accept a Meta paperclip into my house, but then again, why risk it ;)
Meta's game is to do all sorts of dirty tricks to pull you into its data. No thanks.
Walking around wearing Meta’s hardware supports them by you advertising their product (unless you never show anyone that you own the hardware).
The existence of a used market also slightly increases the value of new things. By buying used, you’re supporting/signaling the used market and indirectly supporting the company.
If you don’t want to support a company, don’t go near their products.
“Advertising the product” is an extremely mild form of support in this case.
Your criticism of buying used is complete nonsense. Secondary markets have put companies out of business. You’re not “signaling” anything except that the price is too high.
You are right, it's double-edged. In some cases it can hurt companies (e.g. luxury good companies) while in other cases it can benefit them (e.g. car companies benefit from the second-hand market in many ways). It's a fascinating economics+psychology topic.
I'm sorry for those who don't have people in their lives, but machines aren't a substitute, and that lack shouldn't be used to justify a right to unbounded freedom to experiment without regard for the possible negative consequences.
The point of technology is to alleviate want. We wanted for food, therefore we created better technology to grow food. We wanted for shelter, therefore we created technologies to give us shelter...
For someone starving, it matters not that their fortified oatmeal ration is tasteless gruel. It's food. Is it the ideal apotheosis of food? Of course not. Nor is it a hearty meal of pot roast, stew and potatoes. But it is something.
There are a lot of people who are very vulnerable in this world, and providing them with an entity that will act in their ethical interest – helping to grow, and giving them paths to resources and human community – is an infinitely better outcome than them falling through the cracks and ending up in abusive relationships or cults and gangs.
I think it's the most humane application of technology possible. It ameliorates a fundamental want with a healthy stopgap, and it's something humans have longed fantasized about.
I think you could have made your argument better. the same justification can be used for other things like infinite drugs or infinite sex robots ... or for unfettered growth like cancer. people want plenty of things that aren't necessarily good for them, you seem to place a lot of faith in every human's wants as aligning rationally with the best interests of each other, if that were true your point would have more credence. I also don't see how ai has anything to do with ethics - won't push the moral idea of enslaving intelligence here because I can't back it properly - however ai is designed to make money for a corporation, ethics are secondary. basically if you're disabled and can't access the real thing then it's fair enough to go nuts on simulacra, meanwhile the average person can't really tell the difference and universally encouraging simulation living instead of the real deal is something youd have to argue much harder as being in anyone's best interests
I move much faster when I don't have to take my hands off the keys to nudge the rat.
However, I don't think my preference for TUIs is about my efficiency. The most important reason I love TUIs is that they generally only have a base set of features needed to get the job done. Most GUIs go off the rails, implementing features for use cases few people have. TUIs tend to be small, fast, and focus on a small use case.
So even though I started out claiming I love TUIs, what I really love is small software: CLI > TUI > GUI.
Thats really true, small software thats easy to run, and launches instantly has a place in my heart as well. The get sh*t done centric workflow that TUIs offer is so unfortunately often lost in multiple layers of GUI controls...
> The utility is not of existential importance. Yes, you can uninstall Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, and the sky will not fall, life will just go on.
>> Similarly to how you can just eat less and lose weight.
I'd argue it isn't similar in an important way, people cannot opt out of eating entirely. Overeaters must eat. People who can't control themselves with social media do not need to use them at all.
The 'that was for my assistant' is just something they say to explain away the earlier quoted price. They are pretending that what they said wasn't the quote for this conversation, it was for another, different conversation, between the salesman and their assistant. This only works when the assistant is not in the call.
reply