I was thinking if you used the identical old hardware, you'd get something close enough.

Personally I prefer to watch analog with an all analog signal chain, but am still curious what would happen if you tried this.

Possibly a 3D printed rig with a semi-transparent mirror + some crowdsourcing and this could really work.

It's in my backlog.

If I squint my eyes and imagine really hard, I can see living off the land, supported by small fusion reactors powering powerful AGI computer clusters, highly advanced 3D printers capable of producing all the physical support structure of life.

AGI + Power + Magic 3D printing and maybe one can live "off the land" with "civilization and all of human knowledge" hiding inside this portable tech stack.

Will you define "frontier living" so I can better see the lack of space ?

My "try harder" was with regard to doing exactly what I had just had an emotional reaction to and criticized.

I guess I have a hard time viewing this as anything but intentional emotional manipulation.

To me it's basic grammar.

The sentence structure is approximately:

X is Y.

I consider this a statement of fact, or perhaps en equivalence relation. This is what was labeling a pronouncement from God.

(The idea that how your audience receives the communication is their problem and not yours) < X

is

(entirely why

some engineers are shit communicators and seem lost when facing the realities of human culture and politics.) < Y

Parsing it more carefully, the word "some" is leaving a hole for a lot of ambiguity that I did not see earlier.

So more careful reading reveals it as

X entirely explains property (are shit communicators) for a subset of the entities designated as engineers.

Even with these qualifies it is stating X is Y, rather than "In my experience X is Y."

I know in school I was taught to write this way. I find it confusing, and reveals something interesting about the person saying these words.

However maybe the real problem is I don't actually know what the words mean.

Perhaps I need to interpret it as the following:

In OPs view of the world, X is Y is true.

Perhaps that is what you're calling a "communication style", with a lot not being said explicitly.

Thank you for your comments, I am going to contemplate.

Edit: I just read my original comment and it is full of X is Y statements. I guess I'm full of shit. I'll try harder next time!

I completely agree.

> The inability to empathize with others and make meaningful predictions about how their emotions will affect communications is specifically a lack of emotional maturity.

I completely agree.

> Case in point. You had an emotional reaction to the parent comment, and you responded with an attempt to shame the communication style rather than address the factual content of the communication.

Yes I did. I am still curious how OP expects that to be received.

> Your emotions dictated your response here, not the facts, and your response was emotional in content as much as factual. Hyperbole is specifically an appeal to emotion.

I think I agree here too. What do you mean?

Also when you state an absolute like the word of God, how do you expect it to be received?

The article seems to imply to me: form relationships where direct truth is welcomed while acknowledging that people do have emotions.

Facts can be true and the feelings can be strong at the sam time. Attaching emotions to facts intentionally is intentionally adding a non-factual dimension to the conversation.

If you consider emotions as facts, and are communicating with me, I prefer if you express them as directly and honestly as possible so they can be included in the discussion.

Intentionally not expressing emotions clearly while using them to communicate is inherently without integrity. Specifically the words are not aligned with the emotions. The lack of integrity is structural (as opposed to some ambiguous moral ideal.)

Price collusion, and dumping (flooding market with low prices) if any real competitor shows up.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Each individual point stands on its own. It's their relevance to each other and an overarching theme I am not seeing made explicit.

The through line I am seeing here is that:

1) The people in the US military wish to use AI as a weapon unconstrained by existing legal/ethical and moral constraints. Since they are skilled at using violence and the threat of it, they will use these skills to get compliance in order to use the technology in this possible arms race with "China."

2) Surveillance is increasing at an unprecedented scale, and most people aren't aware that it's happening.

3) People don't care, or don't realize why this might be harmful to thriving human life.

To condense even further, what I'm hearing is that there is a trend towards war, fascism, control, with large egregores prioritized over individual human thriving.

Is this perhaps what you're getting at ?

I will say that I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with this, just attempting to make explicit what I think is implicit in your words.

If this is what you mean, I can imagine that you would be cautious with your words.

I'll end with:

Don't worry

About a thing

Because

Every little thing

Is gonna be alright

I am having trouble understanding what you are saying. If you were more explicit I and other people would be able to respond and interact with your writing. As it stands, I am having trouble finding anything concrete to interact with.

I feel you may be onto something, but you're not saying, so I (and I imagine other people) can't see it.

JIT and AoT translation like Rosetta can make it almost native. Trimming out the middle of the stack will make it in practice be faster than almost anything out there today.

I think this might be wildly incompatible with the business models of most big corporations, because if this is done well, there can be true portable apps. The core operating system can dissolve into something even less exciting then the BIOS. Or perhaps there can be genuince technical innovation in the OS space, supporting a universal new canvas.

I've also been playing with a "bare metal" "gui toolkit/compositor", and wow is it fast, buttery smooth, and uses almost no resources. I don't know that even with LLMs I'll be able to pull it off myself in any meaningful way, but if I'm doing it, maybe some other people are too.

> Even More Value for Upgraders

> The new 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro with M5 Pro and M5 Max mark a major leap for pro users. There’s never been a better time for customers to upgrade from a previous generation of MacBook Pro with Apple silicon or an Intel-based Mac.

I read as "Whoops we made the M1 Macbook Pro too good, please upgrade!"

I think I will get another 2-5 years out my mine.

Apple: If you document the hardware enough for the Asahi team to deliver a polished Linux experiene, I'll buy one this year!