This just happens to be the consensus opinion for their group. Kids have never cared about being accepted by people 20 years older than they are; kids have always cared about being accepted by their peers. Social cooling means that dissent from their peer group is harder.
> This just happens to be the consensus opinion for their group.
That becomes non-falsifiable then. Everyone everywhere from every period in history has been part of some in-group or another with a consistent scripture/canon/creed/whatever. No one (especially nerd king HN commenters like us) is truly an independent thinker in the way you're constructing.
The claim upthread was that modern kids were afraid of consensus-breaking because of technological surveillance. And that's clearly false because they hate the surveillors with a passion and are not quiet about those opinions.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The surveillance here isn't Palinitr; it's TikTok. And the kids love TikTok.
Same goes for pissing off their elders -- as the comment above said, it's about their peers, not society at large, who matter (as it is for all of us).
Once more, the claim to which I responded was that kids today are consensus-bound/risk-averse because of the threat of surveillance. Saying that they "love" the party doing the surveillance isn't responsive (if anything it argues against the point).
Once more: kids are assholes. More so now than they used to be. Threatening to surveil them, via TikTok or not, does nothing but piss them off.
The kids are fine, basically. The point is just wrong.
In sports betting contexts, you're often just betting against other players, I believe. If they're anything like prediction markets, the exchange isn't going to care how successful you are, as long as you're betting.
They're not like prediction markets. They do exactly what GP says they do: if you win, you effectively get banned (max bet sizes shrunk toward $0). If you suck, they do the reverse and expand your max bet sizes and offer you loans.
These things are so unfathomably antisocial that I earnestly believe every single politician who advances them should be (journalistically) investigated as extensively as is legally possible.
There are lots of places where you can bet against other players now. The older betting markets like Betfair are no longer available in the US, but Kalshi, Polymarket, and others now offer the same kind of two-sided marketplace in the US.
Not only do winning players get quickly banned like sibling said, the house take on the major platforms is vastly higher than with traditional sports betting.
>the house take on the major platforms is vastly higher than with traditional sports betting
What kind of markets is this referring to?
Polymarket still charges 0 fees. While Kalshi's fees+spread can approach or even exceed traditional sportsbooks on some markets, neither of them have any interest in banning winning players, as they don't take a side on any bet and directly benefit from more betting activity. Kalshi also pays interest on bets, which can add up on longer term positions.
Betfair has operated with a similar model for decades in the UK and elsewhere.
I was referring to platforms like DraftKings, which are extremely sleazy. I think Polymarket and similar low/no fee markets on the other hand are awesome.
It's more that the military's goal isn't to produce adults that are indefinitely healthy, but rather a robust geopolitical deterrent that only requires its employees to be physical capable for about twenty years, after which their service life is over. Running is not the issue. Even a car designed for driving can be driven irresponsibly.
The idea is that the stress and sleep deprivation are not sources of permanent impairment (even though they are), but rather a filter that selects the strongest candidates.
Copying a bunch of stuff because the borrow checker won't let you share it can drag down performance as well. Yes, I do understand why one might conclude that tradeoff is worth it. But it is a tradeoff.
Funnily enough, because the borrow checker is so strict I feel more confident writing complex borrowing logic that I wouldn't dare attempting in C or C++ because even if I were to get everything right (a big if), there's no assurance that a later refactor wouldn't subtilty break the code. The borrow checker sometimes makes you copy data that you thought you didn't, but more often than not it is enforcing an actual edge case that would have been a bug, had the borrow checker not be present. If the copy is indeed so critical, you can also ease your pain with runtime checks instead using Rc/Arc, but that's another discussion.
If you're focused on just the theoretical correctness of the type system, go back to my first critique: C++ does not have Empty Types. So immediately a whole class of problems that are just a type system question in Rust are imponderable, you can't even say what you meant in C++
The corporate charity will not dry up. AI makes it easier to generate content, and Meta's in the business of facilitating the sharing of that content. Content is surface area for ads. AI will also make the virtual realities of the "metaverse", as defined by Mark, easier to reify. It's also a giant marketing and recruiting strategy.
AI does make it easier to generate content, but the type of content it lends itself towards the most is spam. Whether a Facebook where the majority of the content is neural net slurry is something that people will want to engage with once they realise what's going on is an open question I think.
Anecdotally it seems like older demographics are the prime target of the current wave of AI engagement farming on Facebook, because they just don't understand that this technology exists now and assume that all of the "photos" they're seeing are real.
The more money we give, the more viable it becomes for maintenance to become their day job. It's very likely that more money here would've mitigated the burnout. Aside from just being able to quit their actual job and focus on their passion project, it's acknowledgement that the world finds this work valuable. In many cases, burnout comes from a lack of recognition, or the sense that you've done all this work and nobody really cares.
