Glad that they are maintaining their reputation with this decision.

is doing a lot of work to avoid engaging with the actual argument.

I’m sure you can see the difference between a garbage collector and a nondeterministic slop generator

But it feels good to equivocate, so here we are.

But it seems this is all in a state of flux.

And there’s the lovely asterisk at the bottom:

> Prices and plans are subject to change at Anthropic's discretion.

Sad to see folks continuing to twist themselves into knots to defend an indefensible gesture performed by an objectively terrible human being.

The idea that vampires needed to take “anti-Euclideans” and the way the ship was constructed to avoid generating right angles were some great details.

As someone that’s a bit of a fence-sitter on the matter of AI, I feel that using it in the way that OP did is one of the less harmful or intrusive uses.

E-biking is only gaining popularity, so I’d suggest you educate yourself and adjust your ignorant perspective rather than digging in :)

e-motos are a real problem; please don’t lump legitimate e-bikes in with those. It’s simply incorrect.

I won’t state my own personal views here, but for those that share the above perspective, there is little benefit of the doubt they’ll extend towards Arrowhead.

I notice that general concepts usually stick better in my brain than specific things like your example with ‘when’. Even those are pruned down a bit after long enough though.

With no internal monologue, you can still hear words inside your head, but it would be a more conscious effort rather than an automatic, constant process?

I have genuine curiosity about those that claim to think in “pure abstract thoughts” or whatever. I don’t believe my way of thinking is superior. I’m certain that my constant internal monologue is strongly correlated to my tendency to ruminate. Or, I struggle with concepts that do not translate well into a verbal format.

People apparently can’t pass up the opportunity to disparage those with a different thinking style.

I am aware of MAGA arguments and the continued expenditure of large amounts of money on other countries. I don’t think you have connected that well to inequality however.

I’m surprised that you treat the current way things are done in this country as monolithic. There are countless parameters to play with here… not just “what we have always done” and “throw all of that out and do everything different”.

> No it's not impossible to have a market the size of ours with less inequality.

Good, we agree on this.

> Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.

This is the part I’m not fully understanding. Are you saying it’s because the US is forced to spend more on defense leaving fewer resources to reduce inequality? I don’t see how suspect people like Musk are a necessary outcome of this paradigm... I do get that there is an insane amount of money pumped into the military-industrial complex though.

If you take the (naive) perspective that returning to a higher level of taxation on the most wealthy would increase government income, reducing inequality is just a beneficial side-effect there.

Edit: I apparently missed your point about inequality correlating to the size of an economy. Are you saying it’s not possible to have an economy as large as the US with less inequality than is currently present?