One of my neighbors whoâ(TM)s in his eighties wound up switching to a recumbent tricycle because he had balance issues. Which sucked. But the tricycle is awesome and probably would be comfortable for you to sit on.

Nevertheless, you should ride what works and is enjoyable for you. The point is not to punish 80-year-olds by forcing them to ride bikes they arenâ(TM)t safe on. I have an Azore city bike that I really like. Wouldnâ(TM)t mind still being able to ride it at 80.

I live in Europe. It's definitely not a utopia (nor is it a single country!). However, I don't think that being more like the U.S. would make Europe better. That's my only point here. Yes, Europe could definitely be better (even the European country where I live!), but being more like the U.S. would make it worse. Certainly going in the direction of "growth first" would not make it better, although again I'm sure some percentage of those who emigrated to the U.S. would say this would be better.

The country I live in now is becoming more like the U.S. at the moment in the sense of starting to move toward home ownership as a growth asset. In the U.S., this has caused an insane housing shortage, and we're seeing that here too. We should be moving away from such policies, not toward them.

That's because if you get to 75 years old in the U.S. you are more likley to be reasonably well-off—if you aren't you are more likely die before that of preventable causes. And if you are well-off, that helps once you're past 75 as well. Of course plenty of poor people reach 75 in the U.S., but percentage-wise fewer do.

Also, the EU is a big place with lots of different countries. I live in the Netherlands, where you routinely see 80-year-olds riding bicycles. This is less common in other european countries, but that's changing. Your comparison would be more useful it if were by individual country rather than including the whole continent. I don't actually know if it's any different in the Netherlands—we have income inequality issues here too—but it would make sense if it were because people are so much more physically active here throughout life.

At this point a lot of economic growth is just generating garbage, but because we are so addicted to growth, we have to keep generating garbage.

A better question to ask would be, would you prefer to live in Europe or the U.S.? Not work, live. The idea that our lives should be work from graduation to grave doesn't really seem like something we ought to be valorizing—it sucks for the planet, and it sucks for us.

Reality check here: hybrid solar farming actually increases yields, because a lot of crops don't like direct sunlight all day.

Yup. And TBH the shares haven't declined that much. $600b sounds like a lot of money, but Apple is trading at $200 ATM and peaked out at something like $230 or $240 when the market was hot before people realized Trump wasn't just talking shit about ruining the economy, but was actually going to do it. The fact that Meta is spending stupid money on AI at the moment ought to be frightening Meta shareholders, not Apple shareholders.

#clickbait

If some government is spending $20 million to investigate this, that seems like an insane misuse of taxpayer money.

BTW, the ascii glorp above is a unicode em-dash, proving that I am an LLM and hence not a disinterested party to the discussion. :)

At least that's what I heard skeeted on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/danbi...

And of course this is no surpriseâ"an inconclusive study that can be used to justify a controversial headline is gold in the infotainment biz.

How would an LLM accurately determine which cases were "easy"? They don't reason, you know. What they do is useful and interesting, but it's essentially channeling: what is in its giant language model is the raw material, and the prompt is what starts the channeling. Because its dataset is so large, the channeling can be remarkably accurate, as long as the answer is already in some sense known and represented in the dataset.

But if it's not, then the answer is just going to be wrong. And even if it is, whether the answer comes out as something useful is chancy, because what it's doing is not synthesis—it's prediction based on a dataset. This can look a lot like synthesis, but it's really not.

I was hoping for football fields, but no luck. :(

Queen's English is "has got." "Has gotten" is U.S. English. Presumably author is from the UK.

There's actually a solid history to show that being a late adopter isn't always a bad thing. There's clearly some value in LLMs, but at this point most of what we are hearing is speculative hype intended to kite stock prices. Basically a ponzi scheme.

I'm sure that some value will drop out of this in the end. I am not at all sure what it will look like, except, probably not much like what the hucksters are promoting.

When things are clearer, it will make sense to invest. Right now, it's probably best to let other people burn cash. Particularly since one of the things they're doing is completely destroying copyright law, so when they're done, we can just copy whatever they did with impunity.

The obvious question that comes up for me in this survey is, did they correct for the possibility that men actually have it better than women, and that's why men grew more? E.g., did they check heights of women in countries where women's rights are better? I'm not saying the result is wrong, but I didn't see any reporting that answers this question, and it was the obvious question that occurred to me. E.g. in some countries included in the survey, women take a huge caregiving burden on average compared to men because the social safety net is so compromised. How does that affect their ability to thrive? This is not discussed.

Note, for example, the following weasel words from the study:

The reasons for the different cross-country and within-country effects are not yet clear but might be explained by greater noise in the across-country data due to variation between nations and will require follow-up studies.

In other words, they do see variation in different countries, and they have not analyzed it to see if it contradicts their hypothesis. Doesn't mean their hypothesis is wrong, but it's sloppy work. And of course the Guardian article is clickbait, as is the title of the study. Sigh. So I would take this result very much with a grain of salt.

Not that it really matters that much, of course... :)

I don't think he's acting, if that's what you mean. Of course a lot of what's on the surface is guided by deeper impulses, as it is with anyone, but that doesn't mean that what's on the surface is fake. How real is my geek-ness? I need it to survive, or at least I believe I do. Doesn't that make it a bit fake in the sense that you mean?

It feels like both Musk and Altman share the problem that nobody is (can?) call them on their bullshit in a way that they will actually pay attention to. And so it gets extreme. And of course because they have so much money and influence it causes a lot of harm. But I still think Musk has a better chance of actually accomplishing what he's talking about than Altman. It would still IMO be suicidal to go on one of his Mars trips, but there might be such a trip at some point. Altman's AGI seems a lot less possible.