I think that it’s not that people refuse to use new tech, I think it’s more that most of what is coming out is just worse in terms of usability and functionality in a lot of ways. Not so much a rejection of innovation, but a rejection of the priorities that major industry players have decided on. Like, “improvement” is relative, and what people care about isn’t being improved or actively being regressed.

They’re making bad products, and people don’t want them.

They’re offering a 5 seat SUV body as well. Not a minivan, but, closer.

I mean, NYC has a fairly healthy level of pedestrian traffic in most areas. Times Square is mostly just full of tourists. I’m not as familiar with Tokyo but my understanding is a a lot of the more dense areas have a sort of 2/3 level layout of commercial, but there is level interconnects or they’re set up in conjunction with transit. So like, there are fairly large underground commercial strips at subway level, or sky bridges between blocks for 2nd story commercial.

Yah but you’re gonna need a lot of escalators and they’re gonna be very congested. Like, I’m sure it can be made to work, I just question the wisdom of having the commercial be separated out like that.

I mean, that’s kind a huge issue in Hong Kong, like, how concentrated the commercial areas get. Creates a lot of unnecessarily long travel from housing to commercial, culminating in a lot of pedestrian congestion along stairways, elevators and escalators.

I don’t think that the first level would be enough TBH. Like; it would probably have to be 2 or 3 stories of commercial to serve just the bare minimum needs of that volume of people, and now half your commercial is off street level, complicating pathing from public transit.

Also, it’s tennis, what I assume is racket ball, a swimming pool and a couple basket ball court, so I think it’s actually a pretty good variety of activities, but still, not enough space for the volume of people, if all the blocks around it were the same density and had different varieties of activity, there still just wouldn’t be enough recreational space for the volume of people, even if the variety was absurd between them all.

Like, maybe the density is warranted somewhere like hongkong where the government is largely funded by land sales, so maximizing the density is important for making the land sale valuable enough to fund social services, but like, there’s just not enough visible recreation and comercial, maybe they’ve got a strip underground by a subway station or something. I’d be curious how they make this work.

Not gonna lie, I don’t think that’s enough recreation space for the number of units there.

And I don’t see any commercial space at all. That’s got to be enough units for several thousand people. Like, think about how much store space would be needed to make sure they could get all their groceries.

I mean, he still won a significant majority even with the vote split. And he won a majority In precincts that trump won In the election.

A more interesting question is, if there had been a been serious candidate to the left of Harris in the general election, would she have polled more like coumo did?

I don’t think it’s safe to assume that she would have won more votes than mamadani did in the same situation. And comparing the outcomes of a national 2 candidate race to a local 3 candidate race is not really telling you anything unless you introduce the counterfactuals and do polling to fill in those gaps.

Right now we’re seeing a lot of polling showing democrat socialists candidates outperforming corporate democrats in a lot of battle ground and purplish red states. Arguably attempting to appeal to coumo type voters damaged Harris’s chances In battle ground states by alienating unaffiliated voters.

Yah, given that “training models” doesn’t stop when the model is finished and released. Like, a released model needs to be continuously tweaked to keep it up to date or to deal with problems that have occurred. Even if that’s not literally tokens used by customers, it is compute being used to provide service to customers.

And that’s just assuming that they’re not just hiding some compute costs used to service customer demand inside the R&D budget. “Oh, you see, this pool of customers are being served with an experimental version, so any compute here is actually R&D, any API fees or subscription payments made by them of course get counted towards normal revenue.”

I mean. They do pay them in the form of taxes. And also in the form of small donor donations to campaigns.

In some campaigns the large donations from rich donors are more significant than the total from small dominoes, but that’s not always the case.

To be clear, for those reading, the DSA is structured as a party and could act as an independent party if necessary, but they mainly run candidates in democratic primaries as they recognize that doing so is a more practical way to win elections in the short term.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

So if you view the trump presidency as a system, then yes its purpose was to destroy the American political system and impoverish the working class.

So the the operating expense was greater than their revenue from operations by about 2, but it seems like they’re minimizing it by hiding the cost of some of the compute inside marketing and training costs. This is something that a few AI companies in China have been caught doing to make it seem like they’re doing better than they are. So they could be incinerating money at an even faster rate than they just admitted.

Yes I am an American and I know what he did, but I also know that the Breton woods agreement was only a small part of the financial system, and that realistically, the economic downturn of the 70s was far more heavily impacted by several oil shocks and the hangover from massive spending on Vietnam.

Damn, almost like, there was some sort of third party candidate splitting the vote in his election.

the Democratic Party is a lot less monolithic than people make it out to be, it’s just that a lot of influential people in the back end have been fighting to keep progressives out, arguing that they needed to stay close to republicans to win “moderate” voters.

More visible progressive wins will erode that narrative and allow various parts of the coalition to abandon the neoliberal orthodoxy imposed on them by corporate consultants. We can’t get anywhere untill that dead weight is dropped. Maybe the Democratic Party won’t be the one to adapt to the new conditions, maybe something new will take their place, but nothing is going to happen till that narrative is dead.

Or at least different kinds of addling. Although, I suspect that algorithmic social media does less long term damage than persistent developmental lead poisoning (SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE FUCK? LEADED GASOLINE?)

Mild steps away from the neoliberal consensus are necessary perquisites to break the back of the propaganda machine.

The modern banking system and monetary policy was created under FDR. Nixon just stoped pretending it was backed on gold and told de Gaulle to kick rocks when he asked for the gold back.

Realistically the changes under Nixon are peanuts compared to the digitization of it all since the introduction of systems like Swift.

“Oh, you don’t like the obvious and inevitable outcome of the war? THEN WHY DID YOU ASK FOR IT?”