subarctictundra

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Hmm, I see. Surely wouldn't that be enough if they proclaimed they would only sign real photographs though?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Perhaps a trusted certificate system (similar to https) might work for proving legitimacy?

 

I'm finding it harder and harder to tell whether an image has been generated or not (the main giveaways are disappearing). This is probably going to become a big problem in like half a year's time. Does anyone know of any proof of legitimacy projects that are gaining traction? I can imagine news orgs being the first to be hit by this problem. Are they working on anything?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

It's from all that soy milk

 

I made a user script that strips down Google Calendar into a minimal view so that you can display it in sidebars and desktop widgets.

https://gist.github.com/albert-tomanek/d966b6bca618353827bb94789cafcf52

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That's a good point - even just making your grant money go further (with partially repayable loans) is very valuable compared to using it all on a one time grant which might fail

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Yep. You're essentially looking for someone willing to buy debt with a substantial chance of non-repayment. Perhaps if these business loans were bundled then you would at least be able to predict with some certainty what percentage of the money you were likely to get back.

One source of inspiration that springs to mind are UK Student Loans, where incomplete repayment is expected (repayment is income-contingent and the loan defaults (with no consequences) after a fixed period of time). You'd think it would be hard to sell debt of which a substantial portion wasn't going to get repaid. But in the case of British student loans, pension funds seemed to be interested in buying the debt, I assume because the long term predictabiloty of the repayments made up for the incomplete returns [aren't normal loans predoctable too thouh?]. Anyway I'm getting side-tracked, this might not be all that applicable to startup funding.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Look at all the things that are the result of humans direct action. Now understand how many jobs occurred for the person that finally "did the thing" you're looking at.

Hmm, this is actually a great perspective to look at this from. I'll try this out

The intersectional jobs aee also a great tip. I'll start digging

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do I understand correctly that he argues that people pay for convenience, which means that by eg. charging for the convenience of using NuGet (and donating some of that to the developers) they'd be willing to pay you even though the software itself is free already?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Credit unions are a good idea and I don't understand why they aren't more widespread. Would the infinite growth pressure of publicly traded banks (which I assume CUs don't have) be enough to incentivize them to push all the CUs off the market?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Ah, very good point.

If your startup fails, you don't have to pay it back, they take on the risk with you. However, if you succeed, they own you forever.

I see now. I suppose small business loans favor a more tempered approach whereas venture capital better incentivizes a more frantic approach of throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. And with a bank loan-based business, a lot of the other incentives get corrected too (no pressure for constant growth => no need to enshittify once genuine growth stops).

I suppose the flaw of the bank loan model is that there's no certainty that the research will pay off, so as the researcher (ie. prospective business owner), you don't want to be the one paying for that inevitable risk...

 

The current model for funding advancements in tech in the 21st century is: quantitative easing-doped venture capital hungry for investments -> startup uses initial money to make actual tech advancement (this is the good bit) -> hypes up idea, does IPO -> ideally market monopolization and vendor lock-in -> which allows them to enshittify and extract arbitrary rent from both the supplier and consumer side of their user base and return money to the investors, for ever.

The fact that this funding model applies to tech in general is demonstrated by the broad range of fields where it has been used:

  • for software, things like Figma or Medium
  • for hardware, things like the Juicero (a great example of how venture capital values trendiness (juicero was wifi-connected, required an app, god forbid if AI existed at the time) over real-world utility (the juice capsules could be opened by hand))
  • for biotech, things like GMO golden rice, where Monsanto disabled propagation so that farmers would have to come back to them for seeds (that's not exactly what happened, but I'm trying to make a point).

The obvious alternative to this is touted to be open source, ie. people making things for free and sharing it with others.

Unfortunately, the amount of things you can achieve for free, possibly relying on donations, is very limited. If you want to become a serious business, you need a serious funding model. I am convinced that the choice between open source and the Sillicon Valey model is a false dichotomy, and other ways of funding advancements in tech must exist (after all, the Sillicon Valey model has not always been the modus operandi).

Are there any hybrid business models for funding tech developments, that eg. even allow the developed tech to be open source? Has any research been done into the design of novell funding models?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

I don't think federation per se would help dissolve disinfo bubbles. Just look at the bubble the tankies at Grad have created for themselves.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Would it make sense to have bought it in the past just for leverage now? (not asking about 1 stock but if a ton of ppl did)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

So essentially throwing a ton of things at the wall and seeing what sticks (when you don't know what thing (eg. job) you actually want to aim for)? Hmm I can imagine that being the best approach at times

16
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

The world outside my doorstep is a really complex net of chaos and I am effectively blind to most of its existence.

Say I'm looking for a job. And I know what job I want to do. I can search for it on a job listing site, but there will still be many such jobs that won't be cataloged on the site and that I'll hence be missing. How can I find the rest? What are some alternative approaches?

Also there are two ways you can end up with a job: either you find it (going on a job search), or it finds you (headhunters etc.). Obviously the latter possibility is much better as it's less tiring and it means you end up with an over-abundance of opportunities (if people message you every week). What are some rules of thumb for life to make it so that the opportunities come to you? (and not only for jobs)

Often I don't even know what opportunities are on offer out in that misty unknown (and my ADHD brain finds it straining to research them (searching 1 job site feels almost futile because you don't know how many of the actual opportunities you aren't seeing)), so the strategy I resort to is imagining what I concievably expect to be out there and then trying to find it. This has several weaknesses: firstly I could be imagining something that doesn't actually exist and waste hours beating myself up because I can't find it. Or, almost even worse, my limited imagination might be limiting what sorts of opportunities I look for which means I miss out of the truly crazy things out there.

Here's an example of an alternative approach that worked for me once:

Last month I wanted to visit a university in another city for a few days to see if I liked it, and I needed a place to stay. I first tried the obvious approach of searching AirBnB for rents I could afford, but none came up. Hence I had to search through the unmapped. What ended up working was: I messaged the students union -> they added me to their whatsapp group -> sb from my country replied to my post on there adding me to a different WA group for students from my country -> sb in that WA group then DM'd saying I could crash on their couch.

I would have never thought of trying an approach like this when I set out, and yet I must have done something right because it worked. What? The idea to message the students union and join whatsapp groups took quite a lot of straining the creative part of my brain, so I'm wondering whether the approach I took here can somehow be generalized so that I can use it in the future.

TL;DR: Search engines don't map the world comprehensively. You might not even be searching for the right thing. What are some other good ways to search among the unstructured unknown that is out there?


Edit: More replies here: https://reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1jjx457/how_to_search_the_world/

198
Browse Lemmy like it's 2010! (raw.githubusercontent.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

https://github.com/albert-tomanek/lemmy_desktop

This is my attempt at an oldschool, beefed-up desktop app for Lemmy for those of us who yearn for that kind of experience.
Currently it only does reading, if people use it I'll work on comment support too.

If you want to give it a spin, you can download the flatpak file from here and run it.

184
Tariffs (lemmy.world)
 
 

I often take into consideration unpleasant things that might happen when planning things. Sometimes I dismiss options because of realistic things that might crop up.

I recently realized that although my brain is quite good at predicting which unpleasant experiences from my past might repeat, it has zero feel for how serious they actually are, and tends to overblow them. As a consequence I have cancelled things in the past due to fears of things that would have actually been quite trivial had they happened.

So recently, whenever I think of something unpleasant that might happen, I've started comparing it to other potential fears which has helped me put such thoughts into perspective.

Eg:

Me organising an event and only 1 person turning up (this would have stopped me in the past)

vs

Me failing a class and having to repeat it next year

The first fear suddenly starts to seem quite trivial.

 

My thoughts:

IMHO the rubicon will be crossed at the point when the AIs become able to self-replicate and hence fall subject to evolutionary pressures. At that point they will be incentivised to use their intelligence to make themselves more resource efficient, both in hardware and in software.

Running as programs, they will still need humans for the hardware part, meaning that they'll need to cooperate with the human society outside of the computer at least initially. Perhaps selling their super-intelligent services on the internet in return for money and using that money to pay someone to make their desired changes to the hardware they're running on*. We can see this sort of cross-species integration in cells where semi-autonomous mitochondria live inside animal cells and out-source some of their vital functions to the animal cell [=us] in exchange for letting the cell use their [=the AI's] uniquely efficient power conversion abilities (noob explanation).

Only once the AIs acquired the hardware abilities (probably robotic arms or similar) to extract resources and reproduce their hardware by themselves would our survival cease to be of importance to them. Once that happens they might decide that sillicon hardware is too inefficient and might move onto some other technology (or perhaps cells?).


*Counterpoints:

  • They would have to be given legal status for this unless they somehow managed to take a human hostage and hijack that human's legal status. A superintelligent AI would probably know how to manipulate a human.
  • The human could potentially just pull the plug on them (again, unless somehow extorted by the AI)
157
1886 Rule (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
57
Post your mess (lemmy.ml)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

The outside observer probably thinks I am mentally ill (I evidently am). What do I do??

Edit: Post yours guys

view more: next ›