And this is why it is ludicrous to believe that ultra-rich people earn their fortune with hard work or good ideas. Being rich generates its own money. Being poor is expensive. There should be no billionaires, for any reason. Such concentrated wealth is very bad.
blind3rdeye
joined 1 year ago
While I disagree that "billions is beyond being halved", there is some truth to the idea that numbers can get so big that halving doesn't make much difference. That seems very very counter-intuitive, so I'll try to briefly explain.
Consider (10^10 + 2). That's 10000000000+2. I think it's fair to say that the +2 doesn't make a lot of difference. It's still approximately 10^10.
So then, consider 10^(10^10)×100. That's a huge number, too big to type here, then multiplied by 100. So the result is 100 times bigger than the huge number. But... writing it down we see this:
10^(10^10)×100 = 10^(10^10+2) ≈ 10^(10^10).
So although ×100 does make it one hundred times bigger... that just doesn't really make a lot of difference to a number as big as that one. As numbers get bigger and bigger, they start to take on properties a bit like 'infinity'. Addition stops being important, then multiplication, then for even bigger numbers exponentiation doesn't huge much of an impact either.
Mathematically, I think this is really cool and interesting. But I don't think 1 billion is that big. 10^9 is big enough that +2 doesn't matter much, but not so big that ×2 doesn't matter.
[edit] (I'm struggling to get the nested powers to look right... So hopefully my meaning is clear enough anyway.)
To this very day, I know nobody - NOBODY - who even comes close to Gmail’s spam filtering capability.
I disagree. Perhaps you need hard evidence for a claim like that.
I have a gmail account, and a proton mail account. My gmail account is packed with spam. It has so much spam its crazy. The account is basically unusable. Which is fine, because I no longer trust google. It's been years since I've told anyone to use this account.
On the other hand, I can count on one hand the number of times I've got a spam message in my inbox on protonmail. In fact, I remember. It's 2. The account isn't as old, but I've used it to sign up for at least as many things. It's my main account now - partially because I've turned anti-google, but also because its not choked by mountains of junk.
(To be fair, I suspect the main reason that my gmail account is so bad is that it has a popular username, and other people have accidentally signed up for things with my email accidentally instead of their own. Nevertheless, the fact is that the gmail is spam-central, and the protonmail account is clean.)
I think modern AI would know that though, since it follows almost immediately from Fermat's Little Theorem.
Yeah, especially given that so many popular vegetables are members of the brassica genus
Nar. A statement and its converse are not equivalent.
If you just start talking to some random person about it, then you're unlikely to get a high-quality conversation; because most of the stuff people will say about it is inane or obvious or obviously wrong, etc. But there are definitely interesting discussions and thoughts that can be had about it. I've had countless garbage conversations about, and a handful of good ones. Probably my favoutite take is from Daniel Dennett's book "Freedom Evolves". He is very careful to build up a strong picture of what is it that we're talking about and what the 'obvious' problems are, before then carefully and systematically showing those things aren't really problems with what we were talking about anyway. Before reading that book, I was hard line in the camp of "obviously free will doesn't exist; that's a scientific fact"; but after reading it... well, I'd now say "it depends exactly what you mean, but probably the free will you're talking about does exist.".
I'd say this comic is more relevant:
The meaning of free will is exactly what people are discussing when they talk about whether or not it exists. What does and what doesn't count as free will is what's up for discussion.
And it is a license. I'm just responding to the comment about the law.
My understanding is that GOG is an exception to this. Here is a quote that I got from an Ars Technica article
California's AB2426 law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom Sept. 26, excludes subscription-only services, free games, and digital goods that offer "permanent offline download to an external storage source to be used without a connection to the internet." Otherwise, sellers of digital goods cannot use the terms "buy, purchase," or related terms that would "confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good." And they must explain, conspicuously, in plain language, that "the digital good is a license" and link to terms and conditions.
Since GOG does offer permanent offline installers that can be used without an internet connection, GOG's sales are exempt from this new law.
I'd say mastodon is a better choice, mostly so that you're not beholden to yet another profit-focused tech corporation. I'm sure Bluesky is fine right now, but once they have their userbase they will shift to monetization - and you may regret letting yourself become entrenched in the world they control. They're not doing it for your benefit.
That said, I've come to understand that a lot of people kind of like having their content feed controlled by others. When they only see what they ask for, they get bored. So I'm expecting Bluesky to always be bigger than Mastodon.