Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | clutchdude's commentslogin

To a lot of people, that's out of the fire and into the frying pan.


How do you balance the struggle to recognize your own greatness while also making time to engage with the little people?

Also, how much time would you say it's taken you to refine your skill to get to that 1%?


> How do you balance the struggle to recognize your own greatness while also making time to engage with the little people?

Alas! I lie awake many a nights.

> Also, how much time would you say it's taken you to refine your skill to get to that 1%?

Just checked Steam stats. Surprisingly (well, to me) little: Around 60 hours of Mini Metro and 200 hours of Mini Motorways. I guess it's not exactly competitive esports.


> If you could accomplish your task without the busywork, why wouldn’t you?

There's taking away the busywork such as hand washing every dish and instead using a dishwasher.

Then there is this where, rather than have any dishes, a cadre of robots comes by and drops a morsel of food in your mouth for every bite you take.


Does your analogy mean that you'd like to stop someone from owning that cadre of robots? Or is this just a personal preference?

You can have your dishwasher and I'll take the robots. And we can both be happy.


A more detailed analogy would be if you owning the robots meant that all food is now packaged for robots instead of humans, increasing the personal labor cost of obtaining and preparing food as well as inflating the cost of dinnerware exponentially, while driving up my power bill to cover the cost of expanding infrastructure to power your robots.

In that case, I certainly am against you owning the robots and view your desire for them as a direct and immediate threat against my well being.


And therein is the problem - if your robots take up so many resources I can't have my dishwasher, is that your right? Is your right to being happy more important than others?


The problem of resource distribution is solved by money already.

If I can't pay for the robots, I am not getting them. And if I buy my robots and you only get a dishwasher then you can afford two nice vacations on top while I don't.

You don't lose anything if I get robots.


I feel this disregards of scarcity economics.

Let's say we have a finite amount of cheap water units between us. After exhausting those units, the price to acquire more goes up. Each our actions use up those units.

If restrictions on water use do not exist, you can quickly use up those units and, if you can easily afford more units, which makes sense as you have enough for robots, you are not concerned with using that cheap water up.

I can't even afford to "toil" with my dishwasher now.


It helps provide a launching point or springboard.

We know, going in, this isn't the final product but enough to get boilerplate and momentum.


I'm seeing the worst of both worlds where a human support engineer just blindly copies and pastes whatever internal LLM spit out.


Also see the VW dieselgate and numerous other "gaming the system" examples.


> After two excruciatingly long years, likely voters are beginning to question the federal government’s handling of the pandemic,” said Chris Talgo, senior editor and research fellow at The Heartland Institute, which commissioned this poll. “First and foremost, likely voters are beginning to sour on Dr. Anthony Fauci, who seems to have lost credibility after countless flip-flops.

I mean, you kinda tipped your hand here.


Those events happened when widespread support and supply were brought into to deal with the relatively limited destruction.

This is destruction on a scale that has not been seen in the likes of civilization outside the bronze age collapse.

The fact is there is going to be no one coming to help replace burned up hoes and shovels.

Threads and the Day after weren't a snapshot of one single city - they were a snapshot of what would be happening everywhere else at the same time.


> The fact is there is going to be no one coming to help replace burned up hoes and shovels.

Why?

Why would it be happening everywhere - in South America, Africa, Asia, and many other places - at the same time?


Asia, because there are a lot of targets there.

South America and Africa would probably get off pretty lightly. And then they'd experience the worst economic depression that has ever been seen due to the complete collapse of global trade. They're not going to be up for the job of rescuing entire continents.


No, but they’ll go on living as they have for 300,000 years.

I spent time in 35 African countries getting as remote as possible. The vast major Of remote peoples lives would not change at all if entire continents were completely destroyed (unless they cop the fallout, or the ash causes crops to fail).


The discussion here isn’t about whether the lives of remote people would be upended, but whether those countries would help to rebuild the ones hit by the war, the way devastated cities were rebuilt after WWII.


With all the fallout? I doubt anyone would be living in those place for a very long time


And yet:

"How is anyone supposed to take that seriously? Is that how Cologne, Dresden, Würzburg and Pforzheim, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki looked a decade after they had been destroyed in Allied bombing raids? The truth is that even after infrastructure gets bombed back to the Middle Ages, life remains surprisingly normal, and people quickly rebuild."

That's what I was responding to.


The nukes that would fall today are a few orders of magnitude bigger than those that fell in Japan, and there would be many orders of magnitude more of them, and close together.

The world has never seen destruction and fallout that is even remotely comparable to what we’d get.


US states do this frequently - for example, Texas often passes laws that stipulate "cities having a population over...." such that only the major cities have laws applied to them or certain companies having over employees/users/customers over a certain amount.


Ok - so here's an example I can provide input on.

I have a bunch of white oak from a tree I cut down and had milled into lumber.

I wanted to make a bunch of benches for friends/family, etc. I have the lumber so all I needed was the bench ends/legs.

I looked at the domestic options and it was going to cost. I couldn't find anyone that would sell a set of legs for under $300 a piece or wanted me to "contact them for pricing." and that's all BEFORE shipping.

Keep in mind that your local bigbox store sells an almost exact replica of the made in China bench legs with crap lumber for $99. It'd be cheaper for me to buy those, junk the lumber and use my own.

I then checked alibaba and walked through the process of getting RFQ. The competent sellers who knew what I wanted and what to do were easy to work with and quick to check the various shipping costs - the per unit price would be pretty low($20ish even with my low volume order) but shipping would be $50-$70 a per set of legs due to the weight of the cast iron. BUT, now, even with tariffs, that leg would go from $~90 to $180ish AND I'd still be well below what the domestic cost is.

If I go forward at all, I'll still probably go with the Alibaba folks. I don't see how USA manufacturers will suddenly start producing these sort of bulky intermediary consumer products anytime soon.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: