jah242's comments

Great video but I think what this really highlighted for me is how almost comically complicated ICE engines are to put together.

Couldn't have asked for a better second instalment of the Fyre Festival franchise

I would add that for the non-hospitalised groups it is substantially lower again at more like HR of 1.3-1.4 - (see supplementary tables - https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...)

I would also add a few factors that likely mean that this is an upper bound: 1. As noted this is without vaccination 2. The mean age in the study is 60-65 (depending on the regression) 3. There is inherent bias in testing uptake (case ascertainment) over the period of the study early in the pandemic. This means the sample is inevitably skewed towards more severe cases (and will miss a very large fraction of asymptomatic cases) than either the population of Covid positive individuals or the sample of positive covid people today (as now testing is abundant).

This is not to say that the study is wrong that COVID increases one's risk of heart disease but for me the language used in the interview does seem inappropriate.

I think possibly the most succinct illustration of the rapid progress in robotics driven by AI is the switch from 'Video Played at 10x Speed' to 'Video Played at Half Speed'

Having read through quite a few of the comments lots of people seem to be drawing the conclusion 'obviously no, we have finite material resources'. I think this misunderstands the concept, as economic growth does not necessarily imply more material resources being used. In fact in developed economies the vast majority of GDP is now services (law, accounting, media etc.), which whilst obviously partly material resources based is much less material resource in intensive than say building a new car.

More interestingly over time the material resource intensity of economic activity (material resources used per $ of GDP) declines as countries develop. In the future it seems very likely that demand for creative digital and media products e.g avatars, games, films, instagram filters etc. will account for an ever larger share of GDP. If every year a company's designers creates a 'better looking / cooler' avatar range that people are willing to pay more for then we still have economic growth and assuming the avatars use the same computing power to render we would have essentially 0% growth in material resources used.

Therefore, whilst unbounded and unregulated economic growth causes lots of problems (and has for a long time), the idea it could go on for ever is not as stupid as it sounds, so long as people keep desiring more and more intangible products.

> Given both parties agreed that code is law, there is absolutely nothing unethical or immoral about what they did

There is no rule that because something is legal makes it ethical and moral. It's amazing how common this sleight of hand is used to justify doing shitty things for personal gain.

'you want to be more selfish with your time and money' - from my perspective having children is up with the most selfish things an individual can do - you are spending a huge amount of time and resources replicating yourself (to as greater degree as possible with current technology) and then usually trying to give that replication as much advantage over other people's as possible.

From my experience parents are often great for their children but the trade off is they often become worse members of society, switching to focusing time and resources on their family (to give their genetic material an advantage) rather than any wider potentially more utilitarian outlets or considerations.

Robotics + Deep Learning - I think we just quietly passed a milestone where robots using deep learning can perform useful real world tasks (selecting items, packing boxes etc)

If true we could be at a watershed for robotics adoption and progress as large scale deployments generate the data to train on more complex tasks, leading to more deployments and so snowballing onwards

This seems like a much more likely process that will lead to a type of “general AI” than researchers pushing us all the way there

Covariant AI (and their partnerships) is what got me thinking: https://covariant.ai/