I'm a fan of this too, I think it's a very clever design. But I also think it'd be pretty trivial to make in a six axis CNC. Maybe even a 4 axis if you're clever with your mounting.

The algorithm for the checksum (the sixth digit) is subject to one of the most common human errors, swapping adjacent digits. The UPC checksum algorithm handles this without significantly more complexity. They have you multiply all of the numbers in odd positions by 3 and then add up all numbers. The last digit is chosen to make the sum a multiple of 10.

To use your example: 51076, you'd do `5*3 + 1 + 0*3 + 7 + 6*3 = 15 + 1 + 0 + 7 + 18 = 41`. The sixth digit would be 9 ((10 - (41 mod 10)) mod 10). If you were to transpose any two adjacent numbers the checksum would be off. 3 is chosen because it's the smallest number that is co-prime with 10.

I'm a software engineer who does woodworking in my spare time. But I've never experienced that satisfaction. I've never made something that is perfect. Every time I look at something I've made all I can see are the flaws. Most of my things are smaller, but I can look at a project I completed 4 years ago and know exactly where the tear-out is that I had to hide, or the errant marking knife line that I tried to sand away, or the snipe from the planer that I didn't have enough spare material to be able to cut off, or the piece of wood that is perfectly shaped but there's a knot that just doesn't look quite right there.

At least with software I can go back and edit my past transgressions.

Given that hot tubs have been brought up twice in this thread, I'd pose that hot tubs at conferences might be their own Schelling points.

This would explain why I've never gotten a lot out of conferences…

I've seen people have success with a more legit version of the Circuit City scam.

For the uninitiated / younger generations, Circuit City was the Best Buy of the early 2000's. In 2009 they went out of business and laid off ~60,000 employees. It was a rough time to be looking for work; lots of people had been affected by the financial crisis and a lot of people had gaps on their resume of 1 to 3 years. And then all of a sudden, nobody had a gap. And there were a sudden influx of people who had been managers at Circuit City. And you couldn't confirm it, because Circuit City had just closed.

Nowadays the scam is to find any recently closed, large firm and claim you worked there with whatever BS title you want. A LinkedIn profile can actually be your downfall here, so don't have one. The over-employeed community does this, claiming that they had to take it down because of a stalker. But I wouldn't advocate this. If your company finds out then there are probably legal repercussions.

But it doesn't have to be a scam. Form an LLC, spend some time up-leveling skills, and put that on your resume. It explains the gap, and gives you an excuse for why it looks like you weren't doing anything.

>Nowadays the scam is to find any recently closed, large firm and claim you worked there with whatever BS title you want.

This is likely why background checks even for non-sensitive/non-cleared positions are being applied. I just ran through one as a Senior Dev for a company. I guess it's more likely the more money you make too.

So if you're going to try this, you'll have to ignore companies with a background check or start forging W-2s or other documents, but who knows what data they have these days and how easy it is to fool them

This feels like an area Google would have an advantage though. Look at all of the data about you that Google has and it could mine across Wallet, Maps, Photos, Calendar, GMail, and more. Google knows my name, address, drivers license, passport, where I work, when I'm home, what I'm doing tomorrow, when I'm going on vacation and where I'm going, and whole litany of other information.

The real challenge for Google is going to be using that information in a privacy-conscious way. If this was 2006 and Google was still a darling child that could do no wrong, they'd have already integrated all of that information and tried to sell it as a "magical experience". Now all it'll take is one public slip-up and the media will pounce. I bet this is why they haven't done that integration yet.

I used to think that, too, but I don't think it's the case.

Many people slowly open up to an LLM as if they were meeting someone. Sure, they might open up faster or share some morally questionable things earlier on, but there are some things that they hide even from the LLM (like one hides thoughts from oneself, only to then open up to a friend). To know that an LLM knows everything about you will certainly alienate many people, especially because who I am today is very different from who I was five years ago, or two weeks ago when I was mad and acted irrationally.

Google has loads of information, but it knows very little of how I actually think. Of what I feel. Of the memories I cherish. It may know what I should buy, or my interests in general. It may know where I live, my age, my friends, the kind of writing I had ten years ago and have now, and many many other things which are definitely interesting and useful, but don't really amount to knowing me. When people around me say "ChatGPT knows them", this is not what they are talking about at all. (And, in part, it's also because they are making some of it up, sure)

We know a lot about famous people, historical figures. We know their biographies, their struggles, their life story. But they would surely not get the feeling that we "know them" or that we "get them", because that's something they would have to forge together with us, by priming us the right way, or by providing us with their raw, unfiltered thoughts in a dialogue. To truly know someone is to forge a bond with them — to me, no one is known alone, we are all known to each other. I don't think google (or apple, or whomever) can do that without it being born out of a two-way street (user and LLM)[1]. Especially if we then take into account the aforementioned issue that we evolve, our beliefs change, how we feel about the past changes, and others.

[1] But — and I guess sort of contradicting myself — Google could certainly try to grab all my data and forge that conversation and connection. Prompt me with questions about things, and so on. Like a therapist who has suddenly come into possession of all our diaries and whom we slowly, but surely, open up to. Google could definitely intelligently go from the information to the feeling of connection.

Maybe. I haven't really heard many of the people in my circles describing an experience like that ("opening up" to an LLM). I can't imagine *anyone* telling a general-purpose LLM about memories they cherish.

Do people want an LLM to "know them"? I literally shuddered at the thought. That sounds like a dystopian hell to me.

But I think Google has, or can infer, a lot more of that data than people realize. If you're on Android you're probably opted into Google Photos, and they can mine a ton of context about you out of there. Certainly infer information about who is important to you, even if you don't realize it yourself. And let's face it, people aren't that unique. It doesn't take much pattern matching to come up with text that looks insightful and deep, but is actually superficial. Look at cold-reading psychics for examples of how trivial it is.

Google's AdMob has been doing these. Often it's something simple like completing a puzzle. I hate that I prefer these ads because it shortens the time until I get back to my game.

I can tell you how the ad companies will implement this. For Rewarded ads (the longest ones, that are at least 30 seconds, and sometimes as high as 60 seconds), they'll move to that succession model, but the succession will take you at least 30 seconds. Oh you skipped an ad after 5 seconds? No worries, here's another ad. You watched the first ad for the full 30 seconds? No more ads for you.

It'll probably be a win for them.

If it's a win they would do it already, no? There's no law against it, is there.

I've worked for two companies that did mobile ads, and one other that did web ads.

The web ad company was hampered by poor engineering and management that had big glory projects that were poorly conceived or too ambitious; they no longer exist.

The first mobile ad company was constrained by ethics and prioritized a better experience over earning that last fraction of a percent (though most people on the outside would disagree on principle).

The second mobile ad company had a decent API designer early, and managed to capture a specific role in advertising. That role gave them access to data that ended up being wildly useful for purposes other than it's original intention, and they've done well based on that. But they are completely mired in in-fighting, executives who only bother to come in and be seen for quarterly results, and they don't do *anything* unless someone else does it first. They don't have a functional legal department and engineers are afraid that their head will be on the block if something goes wrong, and everyone is afraid of killing the golden goose.

So no, I suspect it hasn't happened because almost nobody thought of it, and the people that did are too afraid to be a trailblazer.

And we've already seen the precursors for it. Chaining multiple short ads together to add enough value to be worth it for an in-game reward is the beginning of it. It's not a very far leap.

I think it's an attempt to normalize the idea that shelter is a basic human right. As a blue-stater, I'm undecided on whether I agree that it's a right, but I definitely think that nobody has a right to shelter in any property they choose.

It's a pretty complicated issue, and the legal patchwork of state versus county versus city laws can make it really difficult to untangle. I think that given the system we have, everyone in it is pretty much behaving rationally, if in their own best interests. I understand why the squatters would choose a squat over a shelter.

> As a blue-stater, I'm undecided on whether I agree that it's a right, but I definitely think that nobody has a right to shelter in any property they choose.

Given that all the property is claimed, I don’t see what the distinction is. If there existed a ton of unclaimed coastal California property, there wouldn’t be a problem.

So the more interesting and actionable question then is who has the right to live in coastal California?

None of the rights that people have are unrestricted in that way. The sixth amendment gives you the right to a lawyer paid for by the government, but it doesn't give you the right to pick any lawyer you choose.

The obvious answer is that, if people do have the right to shelter, it is the state / county / city's obligation to make some form of shelter available. And I get that there are "shelters" available, but from what I understand they are effectively not available to a vast number of unhoused people far a wide variety of reasons. Failure to maintain appropriate shelters is effective a constructive refusal.

I liked the concept of the tiny home villages that LA experimented with, but it looks like they did a poor job, or cost cutting got too severe, and ultimately they fell short.

What if the government paid for shelter in the middle of Oklahoma?

I don’t know.

If people are “entitled” to shelter, shouldn’t they be entitled to food, even more so? In that case, if a hungry person were to knock on your door and demand something from your pantry, how could they be denied?

The concept of 'positive rights' (i.e. rights that are not just that the state doesn't do something to you, but affirmative rights to something happening) has a long history, and such rights are affirmed by treaties ratified by every member of the United Nations - so the existence of such rights is broadly accepted on an international scale.

Article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Huma...) declares: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control".

UDHR is mostly aspirational - it is just a declaration with no enforcement mechanism (although there are a whole series of more binding treaties on specific issues under UDHR). The existence of UDHR does reveal what the international consensus is.

However, it is worth mentioning that positive rights are nominally obligations on the state - i.e. if people's positive rights aren't being met, it is a failure of the state in the same way as if the state infringes on their negative rights. It does not imply that every private individual needs to arbitrarily solve those failures as in your example.

So to answer your original question, according to widely accepted declarations of human rights, people are entitled to live in a society where they have the opportunity to obtain food and shelter (people who are able can be made to work for that food and shelter, but still have a right to food and shelter if they are disabled or unemployed for reasons outside their control).

But there's a loophole. Burbclaves will need to let deliverators in, which is a gap in the armor. How are they supposed to defend themselves? Some sort of rat thing?