Objectively no. For example carbon taxes or other environmental taxes have been proposed by free market advocates since the 70s and never been implemented (from the left you see advocacy for environmentalism but not related to taxation)

Also if we had enough taxes, the wealth inequality would not be ramping up to great depression levels and basic necessities like healthcare and housing would not be catastrophically related to bankruptcies in america.

If you are a worker, specially one in the upper middle class range of salaries, then yes. You are being over taxed. But that is simply because those below you have nothing to contribute and the system refuses to tax those above you appropriately. You are a local maximum in a system that is not globally efficient, so you have too much tax, the country doesnt

Again, no.

The art is valuable because of many compounding reasons. The interest of rich families, like Guggenheim in New York, creating the modern system of galleries and museums certainly affected the price. But the interest in art of women like Peggy Guggenheim was genuine. She staked huge amount of money in rescuing art from europe during the 30s and 40s for example. That was not a money making scheme, they lost millions on it.

Modern schemes to stake value in art have more to do with Freeports and keeping valuable art outside of taxing jurisdiction. Specially in liquid markets that can be sold in auction and generate cash when needed.

Other schemes are gallery or collectors who have a huge amount of work by one artist and then inflate the price in auction, which is the only visible price marker, to inflate their own collection. There is a famous Warhol collector, who has a shit ton of stuff and will overpay in auction to then sell his own collection privately for the inflated auction price.

Art is much more of a taste signifier than a tax or investment opportunity. There are obviously no downsides for rich people to sell overpriced assets to each other, but the truth is that people will want a Caravaggio or a Rothko in their house and will pay millions for it. With no intention to ever sell them and paying sticker price so no tax breaks at all.

No.

I swear CIA exploits go through so many games of telephone, that reality is whatever people want by the end.

The CIA was involved in including artists like Pollock in the 60s in the MoMA, by then he was well established.

The aim of the CIA was to use american art in juxtaposition to USSR propaganda. Freedom and individualism vs the boring state propaganda of russian workers that people saw leave the iron curtain.

This would be similar to now a days helping american movies get through Chinese censors or to win the Cannes award to showcase how good hollywood and america is. You still need to make the 200 million blockbuster first before the CIA uses their influence.

The myth also perpetuates the idea that modern and contemporary art is basically worthless and that its only valuable because of psyop campaigns from "them" (make it the cia, rich money laundering, sometimes weird antisemetic things take your pick), when in reality Pollock and Rothko were incredibly talented artists and their art has endured well after the CIA ended its operation

yes, the figure that a small sample of people had long period of protein in them. But most people they looked at had none, which was what they expected.

The average time of it was not contested, the long tail was.

My comment was not even that hard to read, makes me wonder what kind of other information you have misread to come to your conclusions

I think Fauci might have had a statement early.

But tbh every other scientist said the opposite, every doctor said the opposite.

If I am not wrong he later admitted that he said it to gain time for the goverment to adquire enough for basic needs like hospitals.

And that is the kind of error that erodes public trust and it was bad advice shared because the american public cannot be trusted to prioritise medical professionals being stocked and because the american gov was unprepared.

But one bad statement, in march of 2020, done for the wrong reasons due to an unprepared goverment voted in by selfish people who cannot be trusted to help others does not deny that the UK had great advice the entire time, so did China, and Spain and Italy and most of the other initial hotbeds. They said "we dont have enough n95 for everyone, please social distance until they are availeble" instead of "masks are not needed".

Despite that, he was the face of a pandemic plan in a goverment alergic to facts and led by a dude who recommended injecting bleach so in that situation, he did as much as you can and is still paying for it.

A discussion as old as time. Plato considered voting a skill, and if you were shit at it, then you shouldnt be voting

But we have already protocols and frameworks on public health.

Also plenty of other medical choices are taken with way less input of experts (see abortion discussions for example)

Not sure, the midst of a global crisis, with almost universal scientific approval is the time to have a long discussion on bodily autonomy on countries like america where 50% of people cant read at a 6th grade level.

Did we enter a new era or where you not paying attention or affecting you before?

Reminds me of the old adage of:

Q: "Why is no one speaking about this?"

R: "Is no one talking about this, or are you just 20 and its the first time you are hearing about it?"

which is still the case, even in the Yale study.

> That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found.

there is an even larger gap between basic epidemiology and what the public understands.

Hard science is difficult to communicate on a good day, on a global pandemic with quacks getting tons of airtime and multiple labs finding conflicting results (due to speed to publish and bad experimental parameters) I would say that was communicated by health experts was surprisingly valid and accurate.

Bugdet and also because convincing idiots with guns to go see an expert who is going to trigger their fear of irrelevance is a quick way to get them to use that gun, either on the therapist or themselves.

> If you must remain in the jurisdiction, manage your risk with the tools available to you.

Great quote to support my initial point. The jurisdiction is the country and the tool availeble is the prohibition of guns.

Thus managing the provable increased risk of death against the unrealised potential of civilian uprising to fascism. Which came with claps and no shots

this strategy is only employed by one country in the planet.

the goverment used illegal funds to start a paramilitary border police that has murdered multiple legal citizens on camera. No ICE agent has been shot by anyone defending themselves against goverment overreach

Companies like Flock have deployed swarms of survaillance with no civillian uprising, companies like Palantir and Meta are openly in bed with the goverment while they pass patents like "facial recognition in all their glasses and its not opt out"

That country even saw a bunch of insurrectionists enter its capitol and the traitors werent shot on sight by patriots.

Idk man, the whole "we need guns to defend ourselves" doesnt seem to work when morons crave the boot in their neck more than freedom. It mostly seems to just escalate minor disagreements, facilitate self harm, and making schools into increasingly dangerous institutions for children. I guess it also gives insecure men an incredibly dangerous tool to try and hide their feelings of irrelevance.

Maybe therapy is cheaper than an AR-15 to hide the fact that 50% of the population cant read at a 6th grade level and feel dumb, scared and unimportant

if the speed comes at the cost of not making reasonable ethical considerations, is that not something that should be looked at?

is this not true also of humans?

2) The idea that there is a non-compressed prior is already philosophical no? It seems to just be a rehash of whether an example of a "Chair" is a representation of a perfect Idea of a chair, or whether accidental things put together read as a chair. Its just dualism or not, Plato vs aristotle but for LLMs vs human learning.

If we do happen to just form an abstraction from less examples than an LLM, then its a question of efficiency in the learning algo and the capability to fill the gaps faster/better.

Obvs a world model and multi modal learning would close the gap between LLM latent space and what the human mind encodings might look like. But you can formulate a reality where humans do not have access to a non compressed representation (or even say that doesnt exist) and we are just more efficient at abstraction and recollection

3) There are multiple answers to this. One is that language can just be a prong in the learning modes available. Another is that language is many times redundant and includes supplemental information and nuances that despite being a higher order abstraction has enough additional information to reconstruct entire messages even after the lossy transmission.

Btw I am pretty against LLMs as path forward, but I have been interested in their ability to solve problems with Convergent solutions and their learning model as a lossy compression algorithm where instead of saving the actual data, you save a very good guesser of the next word. So if a text is part of its traning algo then you get almost a 1:1 (like a zip dictionary) but if its not, then he gives you something that plausibly could be in an imaginary Zip with that title.

this didnt happen btw

the grooming gangs have largely had white perpetrators and all investigations into the police found that they simply do not listen to women, specially those of working class.

Rotherdam where the big asian men case was found, it lasted 17 years and the police had been investigated twice and failed catastrophically both times. With severe reforms recommended and never implemented. And the fear of being racist had never come up.

The case of the grooming gangs gained attention in 2011. And in 2016 the ex chief of police AFTER being investigated and fired due to gross errors then said that he didnt do more because he was afraid of being called racist.

The subsequent report in 2020 from the conservative goverment had that line too, although it also had copy pasted lines from american far right think tanks.

It seems like a convinient excuse to the fact that the police have shown 0 interest in helping poor people in the country for decades, and have shown misogynistic and racist behaviour in every internal investigation ever done (including the 750 page one done after a cop ra ped and murdered Sarah Everrat)

But I guess decades of internal reviews, consistent problems highlighted and demands for police reform can all be ignored due to the convinient excuse of a fired imbecile who allowed hundreds of girls to be hurt under his watch. There was video evidence, he saw and was brought to a judge and ignored because he thought all girls from council states are basically whores. But I am sure he didnt stop it because the people doing it in his case were pakistani. The grooming gang in scotland that were all white must have been because the cops thought the gang might also be foreign? The school grooming gang in Nottingham which was a catholic school and the priests were just moved, those cops also feared that jesus was pakistani?

We have though. The velocity remains high but the acceleration is decreasing.

The improvement between gpt 2-4 where staggering. to 5, 5.6? Much less so.

The results improve of course, but the difference is no longer mind blowing.

Most of the improvement now has come from agentic harnessing, which is unrelated to the acceleration of the model but the tooling around the use of the model.

So we are seeing a deceleration and the speed is still high due to high prev acceleration but its not growing at the same rate as before and the edges are starting to show themselves

Many of the girls are underage, and cannot consent, coercing them to do it will always be ra pe

1) is that the main predictor is race

2) that the cases were uninvestigated because of race

Neither is true. Dozens of cases all found commonalities, and they were working class victims and police lack of professionalism.

> I have zero idea what a rape gang even is, an organized crime group providing access to foster home girls?

Its an umbrella term for multiple men, having a system to take advantage of women. In some cases its offering access to drugs, in other cases is giving them gifts, sometimes its using an attractive man as bait.

A famous case happened recently in france where a man was basically drugging his wife and when she was passed out allowing men to come to his house.

Every case its a different type of horrific nightmare. People who try to make it about race instead of finding proactive solutions (like investigating how a judge in Rotherdam with video evidence in front of him ignored it) give 0 fucks about the victims.

And its unsurprising that in protests against this cases, 70% of the men attending had domestic abuse cases. Because protecting women is not their cause, hating brown people is.

However they also got a fraction of the news coverage.

The Rotherdam police had been investigated 3 times before 2013, and they failed all the inspections.

The Sarah Everatt investigation found serious deficiencies in UK policing.

The last 300 page comprehensive report on UK police found systemic mysoginy, classicism and racism at all levels across the ranks and had very direct improvement plans all of which have not even began to be implemented.

yeah so the story about that... its mostly a right wing hoax.

The real story is as follows, many police departments refused to help working class people specially women. This was repeatedly reported and demanded to eb reformed multiple times.

A woman finally got the story through in the early 2010s. Which led to a big trial.

Due to reporting laws in the UK, newspapers couldn't report on it. Names are sealed until the trail and a bunch of other protections.

However Facebook and Twitter were blooming. And a man by the name of Yaxley, now Tommy Robinson, decided to make the case about race before any news could report on it. He spent years calling the case "Asian Grooming gangs" without any news reporting due to trail muzzle laws in the UK.

By the time the case was out in the open, the name had made the rounds and newspapers like the Sun and Daily Mail used it from day one.

Most cases found had white perpetrators, but the ones with Asian men got all the headlines due to the Tommy Robinson years of shit stirring.

The most famous case found that the police had been investigated twice over their lack of helping vulnerable girls. A judge had ignored a video of a girl being taken advantage of, saying "this girls like it". No prior investigation found race to be a reason why they weren't helped.

In 2016, the chief of police was fired because he was found to be responsible in part for the 17 years of abuse this girls suffered as something he actively ignored.

After he was fired, he repeated a twitter talking point "we didnt help because we were scared of being accused of being racist". This was repeated by other fired member in the 2020 report, but somehow didnt show up in the 2011 report, the 2007 report or the 2001 report. All of which highlighted ignoring girls for being poor, drug users, sex workers, or coming from foster homes and nothing about the race of the abusers.

So its funny how right wing people complain about the bbc not reporting about the gangs, when its a conspiracy made up by a neo nazi felon, in active contradiction to every police investigation from before twitter narratives and which is now a talking point in most far right circles.

So I dont think it averages out, making up shit to be angry about when police reform is something they have opposed for decades is not warranty to keep an incompetent far right spokesperson in the most important political journalistic office in the country.

Their entire political reporting side is headlined by Laura Kuenssberg who is on her best day mediocre and on her worst actively participatory on the decline of democratic principles in the UK. Her "mistakes" such as giving her questions to Boris Johnson ahead of time, would be fireable offenses in any other high stakes job. But despite repeated mistakes all somehow helping the more radical, anti democratic, side of the conservative spectrum her position has never been in danger. She also hosts far right parties 500% more time than their current seats in parliment and is directly responsible for the cleaning of image of repudiable characters such as Nigel Farage.

So if becoming a slightly less abrasive Daily Mail while being paid with public money is not worthy of being called Trash, then idk what is. Its becoming the New York Post but without slurs