I read that there is not much difference in quality of life after about 10 millions USD.
A huge yacht will only take your time. It's much easier to rent a private plane than to own it, and you cannot live in more than one house, so I think its a great way to live.

Congrats sir, there may be richer people, but there is only one Woz.

> Except Meta hasn't come out with anything great in a while either

No, except for Llama, the first open-weights AI, it was and is a revolution in AI.

Zuck knows he can brag about this.

I watched the "Project Turntable" video, and that is unbelievably cool.

To work, the AI has to recognize what the drawing represents, figure out how to reverse-transform the 2D representation into a 3D object, and work out what the hidden parts should look like. It's amazing.

It's only a short step between this and working out walk cycles, matching mouth movements to dialogue, adding facial expressions, etc.

This will revolutionize 2D animation.

The secondary effect of trying to get more women in tech are ugly:

1) As women are very few and very required, the value of men decrease
2) Men become second-class workers
3) A class of first-class workers (women) dominates the workplace, that you cannot argue nor contradict. As a female quitting is much worse than a male quitting.
4) Men become demoralized for being effectively low-class workers
6) Workplaces becomes effectively a sexist place where you are worth more for the genes you were born, that for your competence
7) As a result of 6), excellence is no longer pursued by men, that know they will never be first class workers, so products and services dive in quality

This happens in every single business trying to force 'equality' because of the simple law of offer and demand. If you are in demand, you makes the rules.

People in Brazil do not buy an iphone every year, so they don't have a box full of chargers.

The 'carbon emissions' argument is hilarious. They ship the iPhone in a Luxurious box, but they won't ship you a charger that you have to buy separately, consuming more transportation and more packaging. Yeah sure.

So yeah, here's part of the issue. Car shredders. Crushed cars don't just get dumped into big pits of molten steel, crushed cars get shredded with large high speed hammermills and the component materials - iron/steel, aluminum - get separated out by magnetic and eddy current separators. The rest is called Auto Shredder Residue and ends up landfilled. It's all the copper and the materials that used to be glass and plastic dashboards and o-rings in Macpherson struts and stuff like that.

If you haven't seen ASR, it's a relatively fine grain, probably mostly under 0.5", and with modern cars, it's mostly plastic.

If you drop a Tesla into a car shredder (the eventual fate of most cars), I think the batteries will end up as ASR. And then you're trying to separate cobalt battery components from the old stuffed toys left in the back seat.

How do we shred this better, and why are we not already doing this with municipal waste? Hammermills have windage losses and crazy internal wear. Low veolcity high torque machines need even worse maintenance. Robots to disassemble cars seems like a good idea, until you've actually worked in an automotive wrecking yard and seen that cars often no longer look like cars....

I see it that we have evolved to the point where we can recognize the same flawed argument used to oppose one form of moral harm to when trotted out to oppose a different form of moral harm.

There is no need to try and force an equivalency on different types of moral harm; that's just another form of "whataboutism".

UBI makes a huge dent in the problems of homelessness and hunger - it does a lot more than that too, but just those two problems alone are major moral harms that deserve being addressed, if not solved outright. And while it is a comparison between apples and locomotives, I'll put "hunger" and "homelessness" on the same side of the moral scale as "slavery".

> you also need to talk mechanisms to keep it from snowballing out of control.

What's to snowball? UBI is fixed to population size - it is *universal* basic income, so everybody gets it. The US population is growing by 0.5% annually, so unless there is a dramatic increase in birth rate coupled to a dramatic decrease in death rate, this is a fixed cost.

That comes out to roughly $164 billion, or roughly 25% of the annual defense budget. Not only is that not "out of control", it is relatively cheap for what it buys you.

> The alternative to UBI isn't necessarily working, it could also be living in a homeless shelter.

That is an excellent point.

> You still get UBI while working

I thought this was more generally understood... but fair point that bears repeating.

My confidence in your ability to correctly identify "socialism" is not high.

When did Slashdot become the home of alt-right Nazi types?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Seems to me a similar argument was put forward vis a vis slavery - as in "we need slavery or the economy would collapse"

What the pearl-clutchers seem to not quite get is that the guy staying home and playing video games is still contributing to the economy. His UBI is buying food, rent , power, and video games. He almost certainly isn't *saving* any money, so 100% of that UBI goes back into the economy.

What he *isn't* doing is being a lazy, inefficient worker. He's not phoning it in on a manufacturing job, or a clerical job. He isn't making mistakes and lowering productivity. There is *value* in having that guy out of the workforce.

There we go. Heavy water, the ultimate in pricey bottled water.

Move over, Perrier. This one's got kick!

It's neat that we can taste the difference, and if bottled water suppliers can mass produce it as a beverage it will surely reduce the operating costs of some types of nuclear reactors.