I wish the protocol was to introduce your name about 5-15 minutes into the conversation because then I would have some other information to attach it to. When it's the first piece of information I receive I think my brain just doesn't really know where to put it and it gets lost immediately. The "use their name several times in the first conversation" trick is a good workaround for this.
> I wish the protocol was to introduce your name about 5-15 minutes into the conversation because then I would have some other information to attach it to.
This is exactly what suave people do to get to know strangers outside of professional context. It's a common TV/movie trope. Asking a stranger's name puts them on the defensive.
Personal cars also take up space on the road when they aren't being used. It would be much easier to build physically separated, safe biking lanes and drop off areas if we could use all the space we currently dedicate exclusively to personal vehicle parking on public streets.
Mostly agree, but choosing not to risk a new collision in order to maybe get there slightly faster (what if you damage the ambulance and are unable to continue?) to maybe help someone does seem like the right call
He never says "AI could lead to post-scarcity" in the entire piece. In fact, he says:
> Before making this argument, I want to defend the topic. Utopia is not around the corner; these issues don't have any practical urgency. But I agree with Bostrom that thinking about utopia “can serve as kind of philosophical particle accelerator, in which extreme conditions are created that allow us to study the elementary constituents of our values.” Reflecting on utopia might tell us something interesting about human nature more generally.
This almost always means "security patches" but the general public almost always interprets this as "feature updates" and tech journalism never manages to draw the distinction.
And they just release iOS 16.7.8 last month, that was the 4th update this year for iOS 16, that goes back until the iPhone 8 from 2017.
They also released iOS 15.8.2 this last march, this one goes back to the iPhone 6 from 2015, a device that is 9 year old and still getting security updates.
So while they are only making a commitment for 5 years, in practice they are doing, and have usually done, for much longer then that.
If they really wanted to, they could offer two versions: one which includes a charger, and another which does not and donates $5 to an environmental charity.
Why do some people believe that deliberately and carefully trying to fix a problem and inadvertently introducing an unforeseen side-effect is worse than deliberately choosing not to do nothing about a disease that leads to sickness and death?
It appears that a "gene drive" was introduced into the Florida Keys in this case, and that is much more targeted and specific to a species that it is intended to destroy.
I am a pretty big advocate for good faith communication and think the article is right that it is necessary. The thing that disheartens me though, is the asymmetric nature of the problem: good faith communication is hard. It takes time and patience. Bad faith communication is easy. You can write 20 bad faith drive by comments in the time it takes to post one thoughtful reply. And due to the wide open nature of most of these platforms you're rarely interacting with the same person twice. So it's hard not to feel that that effort is entirely going to waste.
I agree, I think it's also likely that in many scenarios bad faith communication is more successful in the short term. You can appeal to a persons emotions, disparage the person making the argument, exclude nuance to make simple memorable statements, etc. Which is where I struggle with settling on a strategy for dealing with it (and trying to prevent myself from doing it), since so much of our lives are geared towards/optimised for short term results
