no. Not childish. The accurate description.

really? why? Orcs are the closest thing that we have in folklore that describes their insane behavior, including suicide without any hesitation the moment they find further suffering slightly inconvenient. It is a good description of war creatures that display complete disregard for anything living. They murder children, rape everything that breathes, eat their own, kill them and eat them. Orcs.

I am sure over the last 3.5 years all sorts of things happened, however orcs from ruzzian mad king are doing it daily and they are getting orders to do it from their commandment as well. Ukrainian forces have investigated a few cases that were reported from the Ukrainian side. It has been 3.5 years of daily attacks by ruzzian orcs on Ukrainian civilians, hospitals, kindergartens, birthing wards, houses, theaters bombed in a terrorist strategy of trying to force Ukrainians to take down their government. Instead the people of Ukraine have worked together to build an extremely efficient system of producing, purchasing and transfering to the front lines drones and all sorts of other equipment. I know it first hand, I personally have spent over three quarters of a million USD to fight against the orc invasion. Your comment here shows what sort of trash you are.

It's sort of an interesting mix of goofy hype and actual(but relatively boring) worth-looking-into.

Not so much because of 'quantum' necessarily; it's entirely possible that someone will get an at least somewhat worrisome classical efficiency improvement worked out before the quantum computing types reach anything of useful size; and it's probably worth betting money that particular cryptographic implementations will turn out to be flawed; but because it takes a fair amount of awareness to even have a complete idea of what you are running; and more than that to know the implications of needing to swap it out in some or all locations.

The people selling 'quantum' and 'post-quantum security' are mostly in the business of "forget your boring arduous problems by focusing on our exciting ones!"(good business; bad way to do security); but it's a pretty solid idea to be aware of the boring arduous problem of exactly what ciphers you use, and what implementations, and whether there are any places where you've inadvertently left a compatibility toggle that allows something to be downgraded to some 90s 'export grade' cipher; and have an idea of how hard it would be to change ciphers or update implementations if you needed to for one reason or another.

Shockingly enough, the people with the biggest marketing blitzes and best 'executive whitepapers' with stock photos of shadowed hoodie hackers and chinese quantum AI owning your cyber are not the ones mostly advising that you should do some really boring systems administration and SBoM stuff while waiting for mature industry-standard implementations to become available; so the people selling immature proprietary implementations and dubious silver bullets tend to out-shout the more sensible ones.

they will take a donkey's kong up their ass, that's what they will take at the end of this. They are gaining a few hundred meters of forward movement per day for hundreds and thousands of dead orcs. This is what they count on, that people will give up simply because they will not be able to stop the meat attacks. The meat attacks will stop as the money dries up and it will dry up.

ruzzian orcs use drones to murder individual civilians, including children. This is different from simply carpet bombing, to murder a 1 year old in this case they had to hunt him down specifically, find him and blow him up individually.

This is the face of the ruzzian 'soldier' today, putin or not, it is the individual people who are making every day decisions. AFAIC ruzzians are now all legitimate targets, every one.

Hopefully the NTSB's tier 2 people are ready; since they did in fact try turning it off and turning it on again and there's still more to the situation.

So all we have to do to vindicate our investment in glorious AI is keeping firing the expensive labor until we get the team down to people so ignorant of the code that their guess is worse than the bot's guess; and they'll have no reason to doubt the bot's output?

Sounds like a win-win to me!

It would be amusing if it weren't so annoying; but you often see people who embrace both positions without a hint of awareness of the contradiction: when condemning the non-breeders they are 'selfish' and 'hedonistic' and so on; but, in the same breath, children are their greatest pleasure and most fulfilling experience and so on and so forth. What's it going to be? Are children the cutting edge of indulgence and everyone who is missing out will die bitter and miserable; or are the people failing to pay the flesh tithe to our civilization repulsively self-centered for avoiding a massive hassle that one undertakes only as a grim duty?

I'd be curious what, if any, role the increasingly obviously hollow promise of progress may have.

In absolute terms residents of low-income countries are usually more fucked than those of high income ones; but in terms of trajectory they often have a somewhat rosier picture: if GDP per capita is really low you don't really have an option but to be really poor, there's just not enough productivity to support being otherwise; but there's a fairly straightforward alignment of incentives: unless there's a local supply of mineral wealth to skim, even the local elites generally want everyone to be more prosperous because there's just not that much money to be gouged out of subsistence mud farmers; and there are a variety of plausible avenues toward greater productivity in the form of people looking for new manufacturing areas and the like.

Similar things hold for various quality-of-life stuff. Low income countries tend to see a lot of morbidity and mortality from lack of relatively cheap and simple medical interventions; but have a corresponding selection of relatively cheap and simple improvements that will improve population welfare if realized.

Wealthy countries are, obviously, absolutely wealthier; but are often harder to write an optimistic trajectory for: if most of the obvious productivity improvements have already been made and you still feel squeezed it's a lot less plausible to believe that you will grow out of that problem(both because there are fewer evident paths to notable growth; and because feeling poor in a wealthy society is often a good sign that someone who isn't you is good at capturing value; and will probably remain good at that even if more value is unlocked); and if most of the relatively simple, relatively cheap, improvements in things like medical interventions and occupational health and safety standards have already been made it becomes much less evident how your children will do better than you did.

My impression is that, among people who actually reason their way toward parenthood, there's a general desire to see good outcomes for their children. This often involves heavy doses of irrational optimism regardless of location; but there are definitely some contexts where at least expecting your children to have it better than you is within the realm of the plausible; and others where you need to be hitting the copium pretty hard to imagine that they'll beat the odds dramatically enough to do so.

I assume I'm not supposed to ask what 'our own civilization' has done to deserve our care; and just swallow the implication that suffering as an end in itself is totally sensible?

Correct, the headline should be: Why is Fertility So Low in EXPENSIVE Countries?

The reality is that 'high income' more likely than not means high prices, constant pressure to keep earning money, because there are very few things in 'high income' (expensive) countries that doesn't cost money. We are constantly forced to pay taxes, never mind that in expensive countries large parts of the population live in dense urban areas, in cities and nobody has land that they can live off of. If you have no source of food other than the store and you cannot avoid paying taxes and paying high costs of owning or renting a property, then you are constantly under pressure to earn money.

In an expensive country you have expensive government and this government never ceases to pressure you to pay more taxes, makes things truly unaffordable by pretending to give it to you for free, basically in expensive countries you are forced to provide not only for yourself and for your children and maybe for your elderly parents, you are forced to provide for your expensive government.

An expensive government is obviously the cost of running the government itself, salaries, pensions, buildings, all expenses but it is also all of the laws, that are constantly adding more and more expenses to the system, thus mostly forcing the government to get deeper into debt and to steal your purchasing power through inflation (money printing).

Under these circumstances people who have access to contraceptives will use them almost always and this prevents almost all unwanted pregnancies. The other part of the population is just too stressed out and too tired from constant earning to pay for all of this 'high income' expensive stuff.

At the end children become a luxury for those, who can afford just a little more than the other guy or they become a way to suck money out of the system itself by getting onto various programs. They are an irrational choice for many, so to have them you either have to have a direct financial incentive or to be irrational or to be wealthy enough to afford them.

If you think that AI is good enough to replace education; do I want to know what jobs that pay for family-size houses you expect people to be working?

Most of the time economists respond to data about individual choice with a "meh, revealed preference, obviously"; then "It becomes possible to do sex without 9 months of creepy endoparasitism and a couple of decades of very high cost parenting; turns out people are up for that" hits and suddenly it's a crazy mystery what is driving such a change...

There's one confounding factor with a lot of enterprise tech announcements: the people who make the purchasing decisions or act as executive sponsors for splashy projects don't actually have to use whatever they are purchasing, and are often at fairly modest risk of real consequences(especially if the failure is readily contained: if the COO announces a bold plan that ends up destroying the ERP system he's probably going to use that golden parachute whether he wants to or not; but if a little NFT faff can be described as an experiment in unconventional marketing and then quietly dropped in 6 months when it's time to announce a 'digital twin' AI-centric approach to airframe maintenance, that's entirely survivable); but the those people are the ones looking to build 'personal brands' get treated like 'thought leaders' and industry conferences, and so on. So there's a temptation to do trendy nonsense with only the slimmest business case because it effectively means that you can spend the company's money on burnishing your own resume. The most overt cases are where the speaking gig is directly related to the thing you are buying: get real hyped about Salesforce Agents, sign the contract, get your own little keynote at Dreamforce for being such an innovator.

That's what is a trifle puzzling here: 'crypto' is basically a generation old as a "things the degenerates of linkedin think will make them thought leaders" item. Even the guys who are still just talking 'generative' rather than 'agentic and context aware' are starting to look out of touch and behind the curve; so it's a weird time to see an announcement.

When you can use other people's money as the stupid money there are sometimes reasons to remain in the market longer than if you are working entirely on your own account; but the most obvious of those reasons requires that the stupid money still be pouring in because it's trendy; which NFTs definitely no longer are. 'Crypto' has settled into a fairly lucrative but somewhat less glamorous role as the deeply, deeply, shady side of 'fintech'; but nobody cares about NFTs and 'web3'.