That's the official inflation rate. The stuff people actually have to buy has gone up way more.

Money only available in the future is on one hand pointless imo because this won't outpace inflation*. On the other hand, it will definitely turn peoples eyes toward the future, which is invaluable.

*Rich people money way outpaces inflation because they keep it in investment accounts, borrow against it at extremely low interest rates, and re-invest, providing huge leverage.

Here you go.

There's an element you're not considering. These engineers are eating their own dogfood, poor quality will lead to product changes, and so expected quality must rise.

They need to read Proverbs 27:1

Those are application tasks, I wasn't talking about those. I'm thinking set dark mode, power settings, network settings, add Japanese typing ability after OS install, TTS, change printer driver, update graphics driver, downgrade graphics driver, restore system to earlier configuration, user account configuration, stuff like that.

It's not really about those home licenses. The thing is, the higher the percentage of home users the easier it is to build a Linux shop, the more people have a cousin who can tell them how to fix their computer, the more IT support companies have a Linux guy. It's a network effect.

I don't care about the look and feel. I need an OS that I can plug a sound card into, start up my machine and it installs the driver and starts working. I need my system administration routine down around 30 minutes per month. I want GUIs for all common tasks and I want it intuitive enough the I'm not spending hours looking up which command line options to use or installing package managers to install drivers to install features to install programs.

I'll try Linux, but it has failed me in this respect several times in the past, despite the insistence among lovers of Linux that it's actually just as low-maintenance as Windows.

If they didn't make schools like prisons, how would they be preparing children for the modern workplace? The resemblance is not accidental. Much of the structure of contemporary schooling originates in what historians call the factory-model education system, developed in the nineteenth century to produce punctual, compliant workers for industrial economies. The daily schedule of bells, queues, silent compliance, and permission slips is an elegant rehearsal for adulthood. The workforce positively demands graduates who have mastered the sacred arts of waiting quietly, asking to use the restroom, and performing repetitive tasks under surveillance. How else will they thrive in open-plan offices?

Of course, a few idealists complain that future workplaces demand creativity, autonomy, and adaptability. The Center for American Progress prattles on about students needing a "broad range of skills and abilities," as though the modern manager prefers innovation to punctual obedience. If schools were not structured like prisons, how would they possibly ready students for a labour market where surveillance software tracks keystrokes, badge systems record movement, and annual reviews determine whether one's metaphorical sentence is extended? Fortunately, most K-12 schools heroically resist such destabilising tendencies. As the Discovery Institute points out, schools have admirably retained their industrial-era structure. Proof of their commitment to preparing children for the only thing that truly matters: sitting down and doing as they're told!

> AI Should NOT have any protections
You're absolutely right.

and NEEDS Restrictions put on it for Everyone's rights.
You're absolutely wrong.

My banana isn't firm enough. Let me know when there's an LLM that gives me what I want. Until then I'll make do with my own uncensored systems.

The thing about adopting evidence-based policy is that you also need to review and if necessary change policy when more evidence becomes available. The kind of situation you're describing would surely qualify.

The fact is, most hospitals will fight cryonics companies tooth and nail until ischemia has caused irreversible (data loss) brain damage. Doctors fear and hate perceived quackery and don't like being told someone else might help this individual they're calling dead. But when cryonics is done right the body is taken at the point of heart stoppage, an artery is opened to remove blood and another one to pump in the fluid, and chemicals are pumped through the body at gradually reducing temperatures to prevent instant freezing within cells, to try and avoid ice formation by pulling water out of cells before freezing, and to gel-freeze the body all at once. I'm not sure about the blood-brain barrier problem.

Cryonics companies come in various forms of being serious and capable. Doctors imagine someone promising to take your loved one's head 3 days after death and dropping it in some LN and calling it good but most companies make a serious effort to get to the body as soon as possible and freeze it as safely as possible.

Most people who understand how cryonics are done and still oppose it do so for one of two reasons. They think technology CANNOT improve to a point it can restore a body, or sour grapes. Or some combination thereof. The first objection comes from a strange confidence that today's limitations are permanent. The second camp are people who recoil from the idea not because it is unworkable, but because they find it emotionally distasteful: the prospect of others escaping death strikes them as unfair or hubristic. Medical intervention is all well and good to these people, but only to the point it can be done immediately and doesn't depend on technologies that haven't yet been developed.

Many hold a hybrid position: publicly insisting that cryopreservation is quackery, while privately wrestling with a discomforting suspicion that it might succeed, and that rejecting it is more comfortable than confronting what that would imply. It is an oddly revealing topic. When one examines the arguments in detail, opposition to cryonics rarely hinges on the engineering challenges themselves. Rather, it hinges on one's temperament: whether one sees the future as a realm of continual possibility, or as a wall at which a human must politely stop and expire. Cryonics forces a person to declare which of those visions he actually holds.