Considering how calorically efficient the human brain is when it comes to the breadth and depth of general problems it can solve, I don't feel like LLM software improvements have hit a theoretical limit yet.

I agree with you that in some sense it undermines the achievement, but tending to the ego of players that feel undermined by the existence of accessibility features is not high in my hierarchy of values personally.

I have a question for you. Why don't you advocate for more surveillance? The more active and widespread the surveillance, the more criminals can be caught. If you think it's not entirely practical, just embark on a thought experiment with me -- assume it would be practical. Would you do it? Would you have everyone be under perfect surveillance 24/7 in order to catch every criminal? Let's call this stance surveillance maximalism.

If you agree with surveillance maximalism, then we're just very different people and I don't think we can find common ground. I hope we can live peacefully in different countries with different laws that suit our preferences.

If you disagree with surveillance maximalism, then why is your arbitrary tradeoff so good? It's not obvious why it's better. You are assuming the moral high ground, but you're also doing the same thing you're accusing me of -- you're accepting some amount of traffickers existing by not being a surveillance maximalist.

By adopting this moral high ground, the discourse is kept at a shallow level. We talk less about which surveillance measures are actually effective or not, what has happened to crime rates over time, what is the context in which crime occurs, what are the negative consequences of undermining privacy, what are the negative consequences of mass surveillance etc. Instead we waste our time and energy on cheap moral opprobrium.

Regardless, at the moment education does not seem to be doing great on either the humanistic or "pragmatic" axis.

Sometimes the dichotomy is correct, but the bias exists.

Maybe this kind of isolation neuters the benefit you're thinking of, but I do believe some sort of solution could be reached.

Back then Rust's tail call story looked bad. The problem slipped my mind for years and now I'm suddenly made aware of this become keyword, and it seems like a great idea -- to make the developer's intent more explicit. Getting better target support for this is doing god's work.

As an aside, I would slightly argue against the idea that it's useful only for a narrow set of libraries. It's useful for the developer as a user of the language to be able to express things in either iterative or recursive style without worrying as much whether the latter is going to panic. Maybe if I had to deal with all the work of making such features functional in a language, I would value expressiveness a bit less!

You should vote to do harm reduction. Elections happen regardless of what you do. Whether 30% or 100% of Americans vote, the winners of elections still get access to the same amount of state power. The system does not require our political participation to continue to exert control our lives. Abstaining from voting is not an effective tactic in reducing the legitimacy of the system. That tactic might work in other situations, but not in this one.

I hope you will keep your distaste for both parties, but still vote for the lesser evil, even if it's distasteful. Because I think we should help that one person not get stabbed. And if indeed you have voted for the lesser evil and my post has a tone that assumes otherwise, I apologize.

One of the key aspects of police and surveillance states is that the incentives are structured so that the policing and surveillance need not be done with the interest of public welfare in mind. As you said there is no political will.

Exposure and Response Prevention therapy works. You will never get fully well without exposure. However, it requires that you find stimulus of a magnitude that makes you uncomfortable, but doesn't send you outright spiraling. You need to keep steady while experiencing it for a while.

Content warnings give you the ability to estimate what intensity of negative stimulus you will experience, and this is important when dealing with actual triggers.

Not everyone is yet at the phase where they can handle a certain level of exposure. For some unfortunate cases it takes a long time to be well enough to start being able to handle exposure.

That being said, I do think content warnings need to be specific, not generic. The most useful ones are spoilers, not generic messages to put you on guard. Careful Ao3 authors do a better job at this than most games. There are technical solutions that allow interested parties to get this information without having to spoil the default audience, but we live in a busy world that has a lot of things to care about other than this.

If you've experienced a certain kind of trauma, it's not a matter willpower. It involves a loss of control over one's emotional response and thoughts which can be triggered by things that relate to your trauma.

Don't knock on content warnings just because they lack rigorous evidence or because "trigger warnings" became the butt of jokes for a while. They have a genuine utility.

Yes, Unreal Engine keeps getting improved, more Fortnite content gets produced. But there is a general lack of innovation, one that I find personally painful when I look at Epic's recent-ish track record. Needing to fire this many employees is not just a result of market conditions, but also a straightforward consequence of not being able to leverage them for sufficiently lucrative outcomes.

Companies with this amount of capital are well positioned to take multiple strategic bets which aren't at all safe bets, but pose no real financial risk for the company in aggregate. Why do these bets end up being taken instead by indies with much more to lose? Well, partly because indies often _need_ to take riskier bets to carve a niche. But the other side of the coin is, what I can only surmise, a lack of imagination and adventurousness on the part of management. They could be funding many experiments and seek to have another hit like Fortnite, perhaps in a somewhat different market. Having to seek another hit while your finances are declining is less pleasant.

When a company loses its edge in this way, as long as it hasn't _really_ captured a demographic or created some very sticky ecosystem, it's bound to get whittled down repeatedly. I doubt that Epic will suddenly get more creative and adventurous at this point, but perhaps necessity will have its part to play.

(Aside from all of that, I agree with most commenters here that the layoff is being handled about as gracefully as one could reasonably hope.)

"Lots of people", how many though? Can that number be reduced? What number would be acceptable?

I feel like it _has_ to be possible to devise an unlocking procedure that dissuades most people from self-harm.

The problem is often treated as intractable, but intuitively this seems really unlikely to me. I don't think more than a tiny percentage of Xiaomi owners, for example, would go through the bootloader unlock process which often has a mandatory wait period attached to it without a reason more compelling than an impulse to randomly and blindly follow instructions on the internet.

I would like to see user studies with good methodology before other people decide to barter long-term freedoms away for insufficient benefit.

Why do I so rarely see people who are concerned about the security issues of bootloader unlocking calling for designing hassle and warning into the process. Instead, it's more common to hear that in the name of the average user, all escape hatches must be removed.