Children are exposed to the capitalist system whenever you allow them to handle currency and buy food, candy, toys...

There are three big reasons most countries restrict child labor:
- Prevent exploitation of minors by employers, since they are not in a position to understand or negotiate terms of employment - or to resist authority figures (e.g. parents) pressuring them into involuntary contract.
- Prevent parents from interrupting child education for short-term economic incentives - which is a concern for the State long-term economic strategy
- Prevent employers from leveraging minors as cheap labor to depress wages - which is a big enough concern for Labor to exercise political pressure on the State to restrict that

I've never heard "exposing immature minds to the capitalist system" used as a reason, and this includes countries injecting "anti-imperialist" rhetoric on everything. For that matter, the few governments that could use that argument with a straight face seem to have a history with exploiting unpaid child labor (e.g. North Korea)

For the sake of clarity, "they have something...to allow you to fine tune... with less resources" is not really a technological breakthrough. Just means "they allow you to fine tune on your own resources... at all".

But this is the most likely explanation, and I would not be surprised if the quote predated the change in leadership.

Fwiw, its not clear that Stability AI has been *intentionally* decentralized all this time.

They were among the first to release their models for download right on time for the early AI bubble - but it didn't take long for the detritus of the Internet to make SD 1.x a case study on why we can't have nice things. Stability's brand became toxic in direct proportion to its relevance, and early partners scrambled to distance themselves and pivoted to centralized, safer (and profitable) models.

They've been trying to put the genie back in the bottle for a while, but that seems slightly more challenging than nuclear fusion with free access to the model. Which they've been reluctant to drop because its the only thing giving them relevance in an increasingly competitive space.

If the board decided the long-term liabilities were greater than the risk and it was time to pivot towards the same walled garden as their more successful competitors... changing leadership (whether they agreed or not) makes sense.

Which version of turbo tax are you using? And how did you travel back in time ten years to use it?

TT constantly tries to upsell if you are on basic - blatantly with the full page advert at least 2x but also with every section with more targeted offers of features / live support.

I'd still use it since it has the features I need to avoid losing a day on tax paperwork l, and its still less annoying than the alternatives. But their reputation for misleading upsell is well deserved.

State sales taxes are automatically charged by the retailer on every purchase - city sales taxes as well in some jurisdictions.

How do you even know how much money is going to the merchant vs state taxes vs city taxes? Its clearly impossible... its not like they give you an itemized receipt with the details down to the penny...

Have you ever paid a mortgage that includes property taxes? Insurance? Escrow?

Give it time - say 6-12 months after IPO - and becoming quora will be their best outcome.

The AI play is not a good reason to go public, its a great reason to remain private, prioritize user engagement, and pitch buyers for an acquisition.

Going public means the board has to deal with shareholders, revenue expectations, public pressure over the content... and more scrutiny over its operations and strategy (and acquisition offers).

There are very few moves reddit can make to improve ad business profitability, or to make thd stock to be attractive to institutional investors, which would not alienate their most active / less moderated userbase (which are the "product" for the AI play).

No, damn robot, my golf course cannot be classified as a cemetery in this years tax form! Stupid chatgpt... Oh, wait!

There are plenty of negative comments about Adam Sandler's dramatic acting - you may not hear as much about it because the criticism is not harsh enough to attract the pageviews and the clicks, and clearly not as loud as the gen-y fanbase.

It is possible for Adam Sandler to be an underrated dramatic actor.
It is possible for Adam Sandler to be a far better dramatic actor than a comedic actor, despite his popularity being obviously driven by the latter.
It is possible that several of his movies, dramatic or otherwise, are pretty good.
It is possible that several of his movies, dramatic or otherwise, are pretty bad.
It is possible this movie will be bad, either because of, or despite of Sandler's involvement.
It is possible Adam Sandler will only be remembered 15 years from now for sports comedies from the 90s, despite those being among the worst movies of his career (dramatic, comedic or otherwise).
It is also possible everyone arguing about his dramatic talent takes it more seriously than Sandler himself.

All of the above sentences are possibly true without any contradiction - or true/false in any combination. But most people cannot reconcile more than a couple of these in their heads.

It's the same problem Jim Carrey faced, and tackled less successfully, after a couple movies predefined his career as an unending season of In Living Color. Sandler was more successful at dealing with it, whether because he didn't take it as seriously or because he made enough f**** y*** money to produce whatever he wanted.

We are not worse than our forefathers.

But coal miners, farmers (serfs), and large cities working poor in the early 19th century were definitely worse than their parents and grandparents.

Eventually it evened out and the survivors benefitted from the industrial output and improved life expectancy. But it took over a century of revolutions, redefined social contracts and a couple world wars and half a dozen genocides to process that change.

We are still defining global ideologies, justifying massacres and threatening war and global annihilation in the terms of people trying to navigate the upheavals of the first industrial revolution.

You could use the same long-term-ism argument to say there was no point to be scared of the mongols - centuries later both china and western europe are stronger than ever. Never mind the massive culling of populations.

I know. It's not like in modern medicine we would use medication to bring a fever down or advice to lower body temperature, right?

That would be ignoring the underlying condition and just mitigating the symptoms... clearly we can eliminate the viral infection faster if we stop worrying about keeping the host alive.

Headphones are a real problem - if only there was a smaller, lightweight option with noise cancellation that could fit in your ears without discomfort. Like say, a pea in a pod.

This sounds like a great market opportunity, if only someone had a successful product to fill that gap they could make a lot of money!

CEOs on "growth" sectors only need to worry about the next quarter's market cap, not profitability.

This is not entirely cynical self-interest - if they are truly in the "growth" phase and not in a mature industry rebranded with a company logo and stock buybacks.

Every time one something like this happens, people seem to imagine a billionaire cabal plotting petty revenge and unleashing some vast planned conspiracy.

Almost every time.. it's just Galactus.

https://youtu.be/y8OnoxKotPQ?s...

  A hundred unrelated decisions and compromises leave some hapless engineer with only bad options, and this is the best they could do and they hate it, and everyone will hate them and no one will ever wish them a happy birthday.

Because Omega star couldn't get their shit together on time - it all falls on Galactus.

Slashdot assume it is common knowledge there are only three types of careers:
- Software developers writing code
- People learning code to become software developers
    *sometimes* part-time while working on some less important job (police, doctors, aeronautics safety inspector) because the world is unfair and we do not have Universal Income yet.
- Uneducated masses who do not yet understand how learning code would improve their life and make them a better person.
    As a group we are always ready to illuminate these laggards at the first opportunity, but *sometimes* we remember the world is unfair and we have not replaced all other labor with robots, and will reluctantly provide a useful answer when they ask a tech question without requiring them to learn at least vim+python. But we make it clear we die a little bit inside.

(considered using tag - but by the time I finished typing this I realized it didn't apply)

Right - and that was almost certainly considered by HR before sending a corporate-wide policy change / ultimatum.

IBM doesn't exactly have a reputation of understaffing their legal department, or shooting from hip (or breathing too loudly) without consulting the lawyers.

Doesn't mean they will not end up paying benefits, but either they calculated their odds are better or projected the cost / benefits (pun intended) are still worth it.

Yes, this was less "twisting the question" and more "evading the question".

It's not just being facetious (though sure, we are).
There are many corporate roles we expect humans to fulfill today where qualia is not required, and may be an impediment.

Most people focus on the "skilled labor" jobs as capital envisions modern AI as a potentially unbounded (if still expensive) supply of previously scarce white collar labor. But market strategy, planning and resource management are a better fit for (more traditional) AI automation... and would avoid so many existing liabilities.

Now that we have generative AI we can cover the missing piece and simulate the inevitable twitter... er, X meltdowns. The hallucinations are not a problem there, it just makes it more accurate.