I don’t know, i mean he does have range, but i don’t think I’ve over seen him in a role where i was immersed in the character he was playing more than i consistently see it being Nick Cage playing the character as Nick Cage would play him.

I mean a lot of actors get typecast into specific roles you can’t unsee them as, but Nick is like a character that can’t seem to un-overlay his acting style from the character. Not unlike someone with an accent they can’t hide will always bring something potentially unintended to the character, he brings a ‘this is what this character would be like if we were in a universe where his personality was painted over the intended character’.

Good or bad, i don’t think he has a role where he can leave himself out of it, and i think he would have failed as an actor a long time ago if he was forced to.

Right, just like anyone could stop using anything they found objectionable or immoral and keep their mouths shut about it, but this is exactly the type of thing not to keep your mouth shut about.

Software that enable you to do something should at some point just do that. To get good at something, invest time and money into an ecosystem that takes a lot of both to invest in, shouldn’t arbitrarily use that as leverage against it’s users to impose it’s morals on them.

Sure she could switch to gimp, and arguably she should literally because of things like this, but that’s not something you can easily do with everything, and it’s worth calling out when a corporation leverages a virtual monopoly on something to force it’s users to comply with something like it’s judgement of content.

We’re lucky enough to have open source versions of a lot of things, but you don’t get anywhere simply voting with your wallet. Where you get somewhere is voting with a lot of people’s wallets.

I may be an ai. I read that as ‘not being able to count to the number r in strawberry’ and I immediately wondered how you would do that.

Then I realized that might be the perfect thing to start training it on by coming up with things like that in posts, as though that were a perfectly human thing to know how to do.

Nicholas cage

That’s going to be the bubble. When AI has to be able to actually pay for itself, no one is going to be able to afford it, and if you happen to be one of the companies that went all in any used AI to build your codebase and fire not devs and front line workers, you’re going to be the hardest hit. Possibly the only hope is that they saved enough from partial and didn’t pass any savings on to the customer (because of course they wouldn’t) that they can almost survive the actual unsubsidized token costs. But then you will be in direct competition with everyone else who can write a prompt with likely literally no differentiator outside of maybe name recognition in an industry.

Because the example just demonstrates an example of conditioning, but the implications are much wider. The idea is that one signal can be replaced with another, which could be beneficial or detrimental, could intentional or accidental, may or may not be long lasting, but mostly just applies to a lot of situations quite a lot different than the exact example but the example serves as a convenient, familiar shorthand for referring to it easily.

Because killing a leader without a plan for who will replace them isn’t very efficient. A leader, unless he is particularly skilled, is rarely string enough to actually have that big of an influence but it’s enabled by the institutions. The only way to change the institutions is weakening the ones you want to weaken.

Great point somewhat stated in the article, that AI is like an amplifier of talent, and that works both ways. Amplifying good skills is amazing, amplifying average skills is both good and bad. Amplifying poor skills can be catastrophic.

Like giving an experienced hunter a bigger gun might result in better outcomes or bigger game, but a bigger gun in the hands of someone who doesn’t know how to weild it just results in bigger holes in things you didn’t want holes in in the first place.

Normally a novice programmer would break things incrementally, but a poor understand of coding plus AI can hose things exponentially in ways that look like they’re almost working every step of the way.

Have you watched the Stephen King movie about that?

Probably because they thought physical discipline was an effective method of training at an impressionable age but was obviously only a method of punishment once you reached adulthood. Or maybe because enough of the people who made the laws could imagine themselves on the side of the prisoner, but none of them would ever be in the position of being a child again so there wasn’t enough self interest for that law to be different.

Basically probably no good reason, but just a misguided vague ‘nip it in the bud’ attitude carried over the generations.

Sounds more like a list of things someone might be rage baited into saying

The only way it makes any sense is if you did it quickly and sloppily.

If you were doing it quickly and to anything approaching a reasonable approximation of ‘your best’, then the teacher was just frustrated that the work was too easy for you any they hated seeing anyone getting a break but they saw no way to give you more work than the other kids. Most likely because they were too lazy to come up with a good tiered lesson plan.

He’s asking why Trump decided to go

Will!

Trouble is you can justify anything you want with the Bible.

Picking a fight with the guy most identified with have some direct line of information with the god of your constituents though?

That’s thinking of it way too much like an ideal one for one transaction. Insurance companies don’t based their profits on how much the stuff costs to replace directly, they make money based on the cost of payouts compared to premiums. If they can get enough clients to pay the premiums, they could pay 10x costs and it would make exactly 0 difference to their bottom lines.

It’s actually the reverse in many situations, insurance exists to help recoup costs in an emergency and if you have a policy that doesn’t pay enough to recover from a loss then you are underinsured, and the only way to ensure that is to buy a policy where you’re at least slightly over insured. That’s why homeowners insurance is based on replacement cost, not on the cost when you bought it.

Business insurance admittedly is different, but to be fully covered, you are also getting replacement costs for things like stale product, depreciated equipment (which depreciates differently for insurance purposes than for taxes and accounting) and things like building and infrastructure which are at replacement costs vs purchased prices.

Basically insurance companies are less concerned with having to make absolutely sure everyone gets as screwed as possible on every individual payout, than they are making sure they’re collecting premiums much faster than they are having to payout at all. Writing every policy so that no one ‘ends up with a plus’ is far less profitable than making sure they are selling policies that are useful. Of course they also want to pay out as little as possible, but that is not nearly as attainable as calculating the likelihood of risks and raising rates whenever possible.

Likely, but self insurance is a thing for a reason, if it was cheaper to insure than self insured they’d probably do that, but they have that risk wether it was arson or an accident and if one warehouse would actually hurt them, they wouldn’t be self insuring.

Any way you look at it, unless it hits them enough that they have to be concerned about the price of champagne they’re filling their swimming pools with, ‘one’ incident isn’t going to make them rethink their whole salary structure. At this rate it’s shifting from one budget line item to another, and they’ll probably just take it as an opportunity to invest in two warehouse to replace the one that went up.

They’ll miss it on some things for sure, but if there were sunk costs or put performing products, that money can be reinvested in better performing items. I’m sure I’m an active, perfectly running warehouse, having to replace every item just with an at cost payout would be annoying, but there’s also the possibility that the payout gets them out from under old stock they would otherwise have lost even their costs on.

Yes, but relatively often you can get underwater on the cost of stuff that is sitting there no longer making you money. If half your warehouse is full of stuff that isn’t moving or is outdated product, then recovering even the cost of making it can be a windfall. The amount of stuff a company has to write off, dispose of or clearance for pennies can make an insurance payout a win.

Things don’t always depreciate at their started number on paper, especially when using certain completely valid forms of accounting. Not saying this is certainly what is happening at an active warehouse, but there’s a whole lot more to it than thinking everything sitting there was absolutely going to sell at a good profit. Equipment and structures, for instance, often pay out at replacement value which can easily be more than you’d get for them at disposal rates.

Frank Zappa and Christopher Hitchens. Maybe not personally, but i really feel like there are some losses that the world doesn’t realize.