Why are these two points, countering China and keeping Europe safe, the framing for this? Who is needed to counter the US and keep foreign countries, like Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, and so on, safe from the US? And who needs to be strong to counter the US's state-sponsored terrorism via Israel?
I think this ignores the fact that there are very converted efforts to use well-researched methods to manipulate and mislead people at the ballotbox in favor of the vested interests.
The same interests also conspire to keep people preoccupied with basic needs and distractions that leave them with little time to properly research issues.
A lot of people would be behind this, but it would likely just cause a massive schism. The question to be answered is if the world is large enough for multiple global football organizations, because it's likely many of the regional ones will stay with FIFA for the near to medium-term.
What would be better is if they can work together to root out the corruption, but as long as profitability is worshiped as openly as it is, it will tough to fight since money is so concentrated and it's now a kind of self-sustaining entity.
You only need UEFA and CONMEBOL (South America) to agree with each other. Those two confederations include every FIFA World Cup winner so far. If they make their own organization and their own world cup, that's it for FIFA
Other confederations are important for FIFA-internal politics (especially the African votes, Infantino's biggest group of supporters), but for fans and players the quality of the clubs matters far more. And that is geographically clustered
A lot...and I mean a LOT of money...is wasted on things that benefit only a very, very small percentage of elite people in ways that don't translate to benefits to the larger society or regular people.
What's so wrong if something is done to benefit the regular people once in a while?
One may argue that this also isn't helping "regular people" but I mean the subsidy aspect in particular. I mean, oil companies in the US are subsidized, for God's sake. Most of the most profitable businesses in the US are subsized heavily and that's part of how they became so profitable. Corporate welfare is not shunned but spend money on the common man and you have protests and politicians up in arms for wastage...
Except when these "elite" people are inhabitants of a lost hole in the middle of the Creuse and suddenly all children can access Internet in a civilized way. The same way the true elites in Paris have done for some time already.
I think you misunderstood the comment you are replying to - they are arguing that running fibre to rural communities is a good use of subsidies, and contrasts pleasantly with the usual sort of subsidy that only a few large corporation owners really benefit from.
I suspect the parent commenter agree with you : broadband access DID cost a lot of money - and in a sense, the project was rushed, and an unexpected demonstration that public / private partnerships with the wrong incentive structure can lead to as bad (if not worse) result than what a public monopoly would have done.
But yeah, my mum at the border of la Creuse had a better internet access than me for a few months :D
> What's so wrong if something is done to benefit the regular people once in a while?
Usually, this is money taken from people that aren't well off either... So it's not a clear cut positive.
Wherever your society decides to do such is obviously not for me to judge.
As a single almost 40yo person myself I'm significantly annoyed by all the money the state takes from my paycheck to sponsor people who quiet literally would spit on me and hold me in contempt. And while i ain't poor, my netto wage is lower then some of those people get From the state. But I'm not French, so no opinion on this particularly case.
> Usually, this is money taken from people that aren't well off either... So it's not a clear cut positive.
Well in France I tend to think the taxes are pretty progressive, so the money isn't taken from poor people.
But yes, somehow the ultra-wealthy people always manage to escape what they owe.
I know what you're saying, but modulo things like losing track of what year it is as time passes by, a current frontier model is going to continue to be useful for many tasks for many years, even moreso if it's 5-10x faster due to the chip architecture.
It's not that it would be the best forever, it's that it would be useful for plenty long enough to be worthwhile, even if there was better stuff available. In exactly the same way that this computer I'm typing this message on is not the latest and hottest cutting edge stuff. A 7 year old CPU, 7 year old Intel integrated graphics, an older NVMe disk, a mere 32GB of RAM... ok, that's one spec that's still pretty modern although it is slower RAM... but it's still plenty fast enough to comment on HN, even these seven years after it was cutting edge.
> but it's still plenty fast enough to comment on HN, even these seven years after it was cutting edge
While it’s still too early to tell, I don’t think that’s how intelligence scales. Better models get you better solutions even to trivial problems. The ceiling for getting it done better is very high even if you’re not doing anything complicated. And difficulty isn’t uniformly distributed anyway - it seems to me that “mostly simple” tasks often have annoying 1% tails that low-intelligence models struggle with. I think we’ll see people chasing the top models for quite a while, or indefinitely - depending on the cost curve.
exactly, but the "goes out of date" is bad when we talk about software.. but this isnt software, its hardware.
the youd have to buy a new one to get a better model is a FEATURE not a bug.
like if im apple... and i can put a sol level llm in an iphone, market it as privacy first you own your data personal assistant, integrate it all over the os... and then when there is a better model/siri make all the users buy a new phone... thats how they "win" ai.
the old standbys of better screens thinner cameras and batteries arent enough anymore. its basically tapped out. all modern phones are as thin as they need as big as they need as fast as they need and last all day on a battery...
apple needs a new number to up thing that people
can actually feel/see. model generations could be it... every year faster, smarter, more capbilities and integrations.
Well, with proper compaction algorithm (like in Codex), it could indeed be useful for majority of tasks even in the future. The context length in Codex is just 272k, but it can reason well about much larger codebases due to good exploration and compaction algorithm.
I have yet to saturate the 1M context of Gemini, for example.
I loved using XMPP and used to run my own server and even had the apps that would send notifications from my phone for different events over XMPP (forgot the name at the moment).
I'm all-in on Matrix right now and use it for my family but it's a far cry from the usability that XMPP had. I am still hopeful that Matrix can live up to its promises but perhaps XMPP will always be around if that doesn't work out. Who knows!
There are other significant factors beyond the ones you mentioned, such as inflammation due to processed foods, certain oils, and more that are common in industrialized medicine.
Plenty of anecdata of people who stopped eating certain categories of food and certain conditions they had for a long time went away. In my son's case, a severe case of eczema that persisted for years went away in a matter of weeks after we significantly reduced the amount of hydrogenated oil products available to him to eat.
Sure enough, when we would visit my mom's place which had it, and he'd indulge, the symptoms came back. Same thing when we would buy it at home and he's splurge, he'd have the same problems recur. Cutting it out of the diet is the only thing that correlated highly with the absence of the condition. This happened even after a move from one state to another.
One case, not proof, but definitely repeatable in our circumstances. I have heard a LOT of similar stories. Is it proof? No, but it's an amazingly easy thing to try. It's takes an adjustment, but it intuitively makes sense. Processed food of today is something our ancestors wouldn't even recognize as food. It's just not what our bodies were designed to handle. Some can handle it better than others, but such a processed food and artificial sugar-heavy diet can't be called natural or even healthy.
A lot of this largely is not true. People think that paleothic humans ate a lot of meat - they did not. They ate very little meat, we eat the most meat we’ve ever eaten now.
And the meat they did eat was lean game meat. It was high in unsaturated fats - like our modern day oils. Not like a steak. A steak is a product of farming. It’s a new invention, <10,000 years. Prior, humans ate almost exclusively nuts, fruits and foliage.
Yes oils are “refined”, but humans have been eating unsaturated oils predominantly for almost all of our existence. The proliferation of animal fats is very, very new. Really, it’s past 100 years. Before that meat was rare, it was a delicacy, very expensive for people.
Now, high sugar is a different story. But the oil thing is complex, it’s not as a simple as oil bad animal fat good and natural. No, it’s very unnatural.
People in certain regions always ate a lot of meat. For example, the Inuit don't really have anything else to eat. Nothing edible grows that far North. And they are neither obese nor suffer from classical diseases of civilization, until they start eating highly processed modern food.
The Maasai are also known to eat a lot of meat and dairy.
I'm sure you can eat a diet fairly high in meat and dairy and be healthy, IF you are lean enough and exercise enough. However, I can pretty confidently say the Intuit did not eat nearly as much meat and dairy as modern Americans. And, the meat they did eat was not the same because it was wild, not farmed.
But, humans have been eating unsaturated fat from nuts, seeds, and meat for millennia. Unsaturated fat is not the devil. We have very strong evidence that a diet high in meat, particularly farmed red meat, is both carcinogenic and causes heart disease. When you look at high processed diets across the globe today, you'll notice they have similarities:
1. Extreme consumption of fatty, farmed meats
2. Very little fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other foods high in fiber
3. Processed shelf-stable goods
4. Extreme portion sizes
When people look at the Mediterranean diet, it's not just that they eat much more food high in unsaturated fat as opposed to saturated fat. They also eat less and move much more.
The Inuit don't really have any choice, nothing of nutritional value grows up there. They also prefer fat to lean meat, no surprise in conditions of the Far North. Also, during the Polar Night, they didn't move that much.
I agree that the fact that this meat and fat is wild may be the root cause of the differences between their and our health outcomes. That indicates, though, that we may have something in our forms of meat and dairy that potentially harms us - and that if we identify what, we may be able to get rid of that specific problem.
No idea where you're getting this from. The paleolithic was during an ice age full of big fatty game like sloths, mammoths, and so on. Some believe we hunted these animals to the point of extinction with a tiny population, which would imply a very high level, arguably unbelievably high, of consumption of meat. Even if we didn't hunt them to extinction we certainly did engage in relatively large scale hunting and consumption of vast quantities of them, which already largely falsifies your concept.
Meat only became more of a luxury in the agricultural age where we started squeezing more and more people into smaller and smaller regions which meant there was no longer enough to go around. So plebs got the carbs, and royalty got the protein. FWIW you can also see this in the groups that have ancient traditions dating back far into the past, like the various tribal groups in Russia, Mongolian nomads, etc. Meat, and many highly creative ways of preserving it [1], remain the majority of their diet. They probably don't date back to the paleo, but at least far back enough to falsify the claim that animal fats are even remotely novel.
Ultimately, humans have been opportunistic omnivores capable of eating and surviving on whatever was most easily available, which is part of why they spread so successfully across the globe.
Trying to look at our history is a silly way to determine what is a good diet for humans today when we can scientifically examine humans today and identify what foods are healthier than others for them.
It’s like instead of noticing that drinking purified water has better outcomes for human beings today, insisting that we shouldn’t live drink untreated water straight out of streams and lakes because that’s what our Paleolithic ancestors did.
IIRC you can analyze dental calculus found on teeth and detect the proportions of various protein sources in the diet of that individual, but IDK how far back in time you can do this.
Several hundred years is certainly possible, Medieval cemeteries can be analyzed like that.
(Whenever my dentist cleans my calculus, we joke that we are ruining some future archeologist's work :)
On topics like this that have any chance of being politicized, don't just read Wiki - but actually look at what those numbers link to, go to them, and decide if you find them compelling. Because there will be entire sections of Wiki that are based on extremely fringe views. In other cases what is said on Wiki misrepresents what it links to.
The idea that paleolithic humans, in any significant number, may have been 'frugivores' - living off fruit, is based on a fringe book for which I was able to dig up very little other than a somewhat scathing review here, [1] concluding: "If there is any science that is influenced by our cultural background, expectations, and desires it is anthropology, and we must take care to make sure that what we want to be true doesn't obscure our vision."
---
As for just 'sciencing' food, it doesn't really work because health is more holistic than basic measurables. Your example hits on one aspect of this. The motivation for 'real water' is because we've relatively recently learned that the human gut biome has a dramatic influence on our health and psychology. It even has a potential link to autism. I'm not ready to start going for 'real water' to address that but there are related issues.
For instance glyphosate was believed to be safe because it having no apparent reaction on the human body, but it turns out that (amongst other issues) it completely wrecks the human gut biome with effects that are not well understood. Yet if you look at the nutritional content or other measurables of e.g. glyphosate desiccated wheat, there's not going to be any red flags outside high levels of glyphosate. It's even a viable explanation for the odd rise of seemingly inconsistent 'gluten sensitivity'.
---
Anyhow, point of that all being that we know what worked in the past, worked and worked extremely well. The dramatic rise of various issues in the present ranging from declining IQs, increasing obesity, falling testosterone levels, sharp increases in many forms of mental illness - autism not least of all, and so on - suggests that we're doing something, or more likely - some things, that are quite harmful to ourselves, but that we probably believe to be safe.
I did read your link but it doesn't prove your point at all.
Population in specific places used to eat meat because nothing grows there, but they were an exception to the rule. It's been known that our ancestors were mostly scavengers.
Hunting animals is much more dangerous that picking strawberry, back then a cut may lead to death, a broken bone was death.
If you got out of my comment that oils and fats are bad, then you didn't understand my point. I was emphasizing on the negative effects of processed foods.
This is more true in the US due to costs of labor vs. parts and a whole culture of profitability at all costs.
Compared to other countries, repairability is higher where labor is cheaper and people are more price conscious. We're at late stage capitalism where any chance of lost profits is seen as criminal.
I do think authoritarianism on its own is bad. I want the freedom to criticize my government, and I want the freedom to run for elections or to advocate for changes I want to see. I think democracy and logical long-term thinking shouldn't be mutually exclusive. I feel democracy and sensible behavior are two not connected things.
You can have idiotic authoritarian governments that ruin the economy. China and Vietnam were exceptions among communist countries, who switched to a form of market economy, when they saw that central planning was poverty-inducing and nigh impossible to do.
The problems we're seeing in democracies might lie with the level of disinformation for electioneering purposes that is permitted under free speech today.
As an atheist I wouldn't survive in Texas for 15 seconds lol. I think I'll stick to my little Euro socialist country where politicians don't swear on a bible.
reply