No. You are too stupid to understand even basic facts. Telling you anything is a complete waste of time.

Hey, if the morons insist on giving themselves worse health, I am all for it!

That is because some (like me) have already done it, while the others cannot deal with reality.
 

And nobody can afford these things anymore and idiots like this one need to scramble to undo their bad ideas.

Does "efficiency" mean not what you think it mesns, but "we get to do what we like, efficiently, without rationality stopping us"?

What effect does this new definition of "efficiency" have on mainstream economic theory? Is it time to put it in the dustbin of history?

I hope these kids remember the assholes behind this when they become old enough to vote.

Hahahaha, not. You cannot get away with selling slopmakers long-term.

Well, better late than never.

If you drop rational pricing theory, why hold to old wives' tales about inflation?

If prices are noisy to at least plus-or-minus 7%, what does 3% inflstion mean? Could inflstion stats be noise, resulting from a random price at the particulsr time the survey was taken?

If inflation is noisy, why not adapt to it using indexation instead of sticking to ancient fantasies about the quantity theory of money?

It is legal to do so in the EU, BUT you must make the full process that generated that price transparent and you must state that it is a personalized price:
https://europa.eu/youreurope/c...

I guess that pretty much kills the idea in the EU as it relies of customers not knowing. Anyways, have fun with your anti-consumer version of capitalism! So much winning! Just not for you...

Much like Cracker Barrel, this was a deliberatte "fuck you" to get attention. It worked!

At least in the current climate (and quite possibly indefinitely; depending on how prudent their investments are and whether they have any uncontrollably expensive hobby) there's not really any reason for the 'AI' guys to take such a servile attitude.

If you actually need the job, or are invested in the company's mission for some reason, it's a good idea to care at least slightly about how your paycheck doesn't bounce; but that's not really the position these guys are in. Exceptionally in-demand skillset and reputation; existing net worth almost certainly already enough to at least keep them comfortable indefinitely if they feel like quitting the rat race or get fired. Why settle for doing sordid adtech if you think that, best case, your boss in the sort of dumbass who would lose billions of dollars on the idea that Second Life would totally have the GDP of western europe, because reasons, and you can keep him paying you a handsome salary and providing you with the GPU compute time and dubiously sourced datasets that you find personally interesting; and worst case, if you lose the fight, you'll just be told to go sling ads, not fired and blacklisted.

Facebook isn't running a charity; but neither are these guys. Why wouldn't they try to take what they can get? Especially when the actually-profitable business units are fat enough that there's plenty of room for boondoggles, so long as you can sell them, rather than there being fairly tight constraints on how much you can waste before the company starts bleeding out.

It would honestly be more surprising if they signed up with facebook out of a genuine willingness to do adtech swill and sordid 'engagement' hacking; rather than on the assumption that there's enough desperate dumb money sloshing around in Zuckerberg's fear of missing out on the next big thing that they can get paid to pursue their pet projects without much concern for having to deliver short term impact on the bottom line.

I assume that at least some of the tension here is that facebook hired these guys to be the hotshot golden boys of sucking less at AI; so it isn't just an it's-only-money thing. I don't know whether or not this belief is accurate; but Zuck and friends certainly hunted down and paid for the various new AI hires as though they were capable of things that in-house or more readily available alternatives are not, so the battle over where their attention will be focused is presumably being waged on the assumption that having someone else do what they aren't doing isn't really a substitute.

What I would be curious to know is why the 'build god-machine' goal isn't being treated as the obvious winner just because you can have the god machine make facebook more addictive and better at serving ads. Do they think that the AI guys are drinking the kool-aide and the only thing they'll actually be able to deliver is incremental improvements; so they want those churned directly into products? Some degree of confidence that they will eventually manage it; but fear of missing out on some sort of short term advantage means that they don't care about what is achievable in 5-10 years? Genuinely zero interest in anything except making social media more of a hellscape; so they simply don't care?

And a leader who decorates the Capitol with gold Wing-Dings.

Helping out dyslexic glaucomic crosseyed midgets who are using CRT monitors due to poverty sets off all their DEI alarms. They'll send out ICE out of sheer panic.