1) Don't participate (and accept the consequences)

2) Participate (and accept potential disappointment/failure, with the benefit of having tried)

If you view 2) as fruitless unless your desired outcome is likely, you miss the potential value in the pursuit itself: working with like-minded people, building community, developing new skills, taking agency in your own life, and whatever else might come up along the way.

I don't begrudge anyone for choosing 1) (as long as they own their decision and don't force it on others), but 2) still seems like the aspirational choice I'd want to make if I could.

Citing a wilderness figure for developed countries is misleading. Most of it is ecologically vacant--second-growth and tree plantations sans apex predators, large herbivores, intact soil biota, etc. Tree cover is not a functioning ecosystem. Developed countries have exported their ecological destruction: the beef, soy, palm oil, and minerals driving habitat loss in the tropics get consumed in the same places where the domestic "wilderness" figures look great.

The Living Planet Index (actual wild vertebrate populations) is down 73% on average since 1970. North American bird populations are down ~3 billion over the same period. Terrestrial insect biomass shows steep decline in studied regions. None of that shows up in "how much undeveloped land exists" or "how many solar panels got installed."

China's solar buildout is great news for climate, but climate is one driver among several. Habitat fragmentation, pollution, and overfishing don't get solved by the energy transition. You can decarbonize the entire grid and still preside over a mass extinction.

It makes sense they'd be harder to find, I imagine there are more opportunities to make money by selling your soul than by offering honest review, and people with large investments have large incentives to dilute signal in their favor.

It's sad that so many platforms let it happen, but it makes sense when the users aren't the ones paying the bills. I'm immensely grateful for those that resist though, and if I were a religious person I would nominate them for sainthood or reincarnation or at least a plaque on a nice park bench somewhere.

The concern for my brain is valid though, my thoughts and dreams now only materialize as Markdown task lists.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47560967

Points: 137

# Comments: 31

> “[We will] tailor use restrictions to the mission and legal authorities of a government entity” based on factors such as “the extent of the agency’s willingness to engage in ongoing dialogue,” Anthropic says in its terms. The terms, it notes, do not apply to AI systems it considers to “substantially increase the risk of catastrophic misuse,” show “low-level autonomous capabilities,” or that can be used for disinformation campaigns, the design or deployment of weapons, censorship, domestic surveillance, and malicious cyber operations.

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/07/anthropic-teams-up-with-pa...

Forgive the uninformed questions, but given that `workerd` (https://github.com/cloudflare/workerd) is "open-source" (in terms of the runtime itself, less so the deployment model), is the main distinction here that OpenWorkers provides a complete environment? Any notable differences between the respective runtimes themselves? Is the intention to ever provide a managed offering for scalability/enterprise features, or primarily focus on enabling self-hosting for DIYers?

Reducing harm where feasible is still meaningful, and certainly better than no attempt at all.

Rockstar, and owner Take-Two (largely owned by institutional investors--well known for their historical championing of workers rights and fondness of unions), both seem to have your typical corporate hierarchies, where executives are fairly and correctly compensated for being more productive than over 200 software engineers combined.