@DanRiffle You sure?
US penny thickness = 0.06 in = 0.00152 metre.
0.00152 * 100 * 250B = 38,000,000,000 metres = 38,000,000 km.
The moon is 380,000 km away.
Is this not 100x wrong in the other direction?
AI Safety is now mainstream. Sitting Senators and former Presidential Candidates are talking about the risk of human extinction from AI. The median voter is on our side. Doing online in-group signaling that is deeply alienating to the median voter is actively harming the cause, and gives support to AI industry lobbyists.
@KelseyTuoc Georgism but for data? Not sure how that would work since datasets aren't rivalrous but public ownership of AI approximates the spirit of it.
@CJHandmer Physical infrastructure is so abstracted from the (e.g.) stock being taxed, the system can reorient efficiently. EMH says the least efficient investments will go first, right?
Whereas in practice an individual's marginal choices are basically work more or work less.
@CJHandmer IANA economist, but intuitively it seems capital is mostly very fungible and elastic whereas lots of jobs are hyper specialised bottlenecks. E.g. it's much worse to tax a brain surgeon to work less than to tax the equivalent amount from capital.
Economics: The optimal level of tax evasion, govt waste, crime, and even voter fraud is often *above* zero.
(Because getting to literal zero usually requires imposing dramatically higher costs & burdens on everyone else to ensure prevention of those last, few, toughest cases.)
@allie__voss@Taggerung848 If you used to work in data centre policy, you know new data centres being built now aren't for services that existed <2020. This is an embarrassingly obtuse "gotcha" argument that avoids the spirit of the objection by taking colloquialisms literally.
@allie__voss@MWC_author This whole framing is totally disingenuous. Even if most opponents don't understand the distinction, they're right to suspect that the new wave of data centres has nothing to do with internet infrastructure we take for granted. It is not the least bit hypocritical to oppose them.
@ruthlesdebunker@RuxandraTeslo@credenzaclear2 1) Child-rearing doesn't end with toddlers. This is an arbitrary cut-off chosen purely to insult their target.
2) There'a no reason why this would be the limiting factor on cognition.
3) Modern women provide overwhelming contrary evidence.
@ruthlesdebunker@RuxandraTeslo@credenzaclear2 Regardless of the merit of any one argument, very obviously a philosopher whose whole academic career deals with utilitarianism is a utilitarian.
@IsabelAphrael @follynomics But wouldn't you expect and equal distribution of nice laptops in groups that do and don't get them? And further, since this would also be a factor in the real world, isn't it still a good test of the policy?
@ruthlesdebunker@RuxandraTeslo@credenzaclear2 >Because it is?
Please explain how hunting is intrinsically more utilitarian than raising children.
>That person isn't a utilitarian.
"I think of myself as quite utilitarian in my moral outlook."
https://t.co/3mwZyNMmR5
@ruthlesdebunker@RuxandraTeslo@credenzaclear2 I understand his claim. It's just absurd and the evidence he offers is worthless. Is there anything like it in men or elsewhere in human cognition at all?
It's not even clear why hunting is more utilitarian. And lastly, again, the person he is criticising *is a utilitarian*.
@ruthlesdebunker@RuxandraTeslo@credenzaclear2 2/2 Others are brief, modern, context dependent one-offs (e.g. 'ban bossy") to justify their whole model of half of all people. Even so, it just kicks my question down the road . Do men have temperments like Gazelles then?
@ruthlesdebunker@RuxandraTeslo@credenzaclear2 Sorry, thought the opening was the whole tweet. Impressively, it manages to keep the bar this low throughout. Much of what they cite just *doesn't happen, ever*, e.g. indulging burglars. 1/2