The info about the RAND corporation was engaging, but... since the post promised to connect it to "strikingly similar to the rhetoric coming out of places like Anthropic" ... I was surprised that it entirely lacked quotes from Anthropic, save one link to another blog post that was itself, IIUC, a joke.
Just so we are all on the same page, capitalism is when:
.. the "means of production" (factories, employees, computers, tools, etc.) ..
.. are "privately owned" (as opposed to state owned) ..
.. for "profit" (so you do not have to live paycheck to paycheck).
This is a good idea, because otherwise the state would have a monopoly on everything by definition. Monopolies can form under capitalism, but that's where the state should take action. Remember when Standard Oil became a monopoly and was broken apart by the state under capitalism back in 1911? A failure of the state isn't a failure of capitalism, which is also why I can't understand people wanting communism, which would give the state a monopoly on everything, when what we are witnessing is already a failure of the state.
It even updated to let you choose the search engine. Surprisingly they haven't updated it to include OpenAI/Claude/Copilot/... guess he should've named the domain "lmFtfy" (s/Google/find/g)
You're defending the example (why idk), but what about, say, a dog food company listing "buffalo meat" as its #1 ingredient by simply splitting every filler ingredient into constituent parts?
How does one reward the "good guys" when one can't tell the difference between a gamed metric and an honest one?
Why? Because I once researched it also assuming it was a scam, and then found out it very much wasn't.
I can't speak to dog food, I haven't researched that -- just the multiple sugar types. And also that when ice cream lists skim milk as an ingredient along with heavy cream, this isn't to make it appear healthier either -- it's to control the overall milkfat levels.
But if you're looking for nutritional information, that's literally on the label next to the ingredients. If you want to judge the protein or the sugar, then just look at that. If you're trying to judge those amounts by looking at the order of ingredients, that's your mistake to begin with.
There.can be multiple reasons for things. It is true that blending sugar, corn syrup, and HFCS gives finer control over texture and flavor. It is also true that there is immense marketing value to "strawberries" being the first ingredient, and if "sugar" was listed first they would see a drop in sales.
If you think the second item there does not get consideration by these companies, you are dead wrong.
> It is also true that there is immense marketing value to "strawberries" being the first ingredient, and if "sugar" was listed first they would see a drop in sales.
To add to this, I recall an actual marketing campaign from one of the big US cereal manufacturers (I forget which) about the first listed ingredient in some of their cereals being whole grain, explicitly selling their product on the fact that the plurality ingredient of it is healthy.
Granted, that by itself doesn't mean much, but if they also split sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, their claim of "more whole grain than any other ingredient" could easily fall under technically-correct-but-misleading. Of course, a shopper can get more useful information from the nutritional facts but most people shop by the pretty picture on the front of the box (and the friendly message on their screen) rather than the technical label on the back.
Yeah. I think we need to get back to a life that revolves around natural cycles and healthy circadian rhythms. It’s stupid that I have to get up in the dark to take my kid to school. Unquestionably, my kid should be sleeping until the light naturally wakes her.
You mean move back to Africa? It might be a bit un-natural for humans to even live that far north, which forces the consumption of more resources (heating, clothing, food transport, etc.) than we would if we would live in milder climates.
reply