throwawayp0rn's comments

I am not talking about these people using FSD on and off like it happens now with Tesla. AS it stands that would be a failure, it's just a glorified cruise control

I am talking about fully giving control to the car and preventing humans from interacting, after clear statistical evidence of autopilot being better than the avg. driver. Given that by definition the majority of drivers are avg. then society would be better off summoning Skynet and putting it at the wheel. It's a clear cut reasoning that works in theory.

Better than avg. doesn't mean that accidents won't happen though. Accidents will still happen and as soon as they start to happen the whole thing will be reversed. That's because people don't consider themselves the "avg. driver" and would rather bet on themselves being better than the avg. driver than the computer being better than that .

Even 95 yr old people consider themselves the local Lewis Hamilton.

You raised the example of FSD purchases, I cite you the counterexample of vaccines. Vaccines are much much much better than the immune system against COVID, if it were to be close you'd have much less adoption because skepticism is not linear.

When in doubt , people bet on themselves or the status quo. In this case the status quo is literally betting on themselves so you have a double effect there too

Robo-Perfection or Robot Lewis Hamilton is the bar for a sober person (especially guys) to let go of the wheel.

If it's close I'd rather bet on myself. Many people feel the same way.

people discount the psychological effects of letting go of the wheel, the advantage has to be crystal clear

> And no, perfection is not a reasonable bar.

It's the only bar. Considering the regular person overconfidence in their ability they will either want something that doesn't crash ever or if it crashes it has to bring about other advantages such as speed.

Eg. Same rate of self driving crashes with an avg. speed of 100mph as human 40mph.

Like putting your Mercedes in the hands of Lewis Hamilton. People won't have any problem doing that, because they understand that Hamilton is a much better driver than them. If it's close people won't relinquish control, at least when sober.

> It is stunning that these kinds of lazy, unexamined biases are accepted in non-fringe media outlets.

It is what it is. With crypto you have all the tools to stay under the radar, it's the main selling point.

It's always white men who are not happy with just the riches but feel the enormous need to spew whatever opionion they have through traditional media and the interwebz.

You can't complain that journalists who are essentially haters and believe people are inherently bad (much like cops, detectives and attorney generals) then single you out as the bad guys when they inevitably come to the space and have to write a piece on it.

Just to give a quick example from non-crypto industries: nobody is calling out Sergey Brin, Larry Page or the French guy at the helm of LVMH.

That's because their jewish heritage coherently suggested them to just be happy having more money than God, stay under the radar instead of pursuing attention and sociopolitical clout.

Self respect > reputation with the HR

> ...want social and interpersonal connections with their colleagues and managers

Many people want it. Say you get a remote position and move from NYC to Colorado.

How do you make friends? How do you get inside the local social circle? How do you get laid in a way that enables you to still look yourself in the mirror with respect (meaning not resorting to Tinder, dating websites or escorts).

Work gives individuals a sense of meaning but also a sense of commonality with others. Working towards a common goal with other people is a very powerful feeling. It's a watered down version of the High School locker room, you get to experience the elation of the wins and the sadness of the losses together, and sure it's watered down but it's still there. A total shift to remote would completely obliterate the concept.

Remote is favored by those whose social life is essentially over (married people with kids)

Wasn't technically the LPs who each made a fraction of that 1.1B while Soros and Druck got the 5 and 20 or whatever fees they charged them?

Honestly all things being equal you should live where you are relevant.

The scenary, temperature and all the rest gets old pretty quickly and you are left with the social connections you can make as the only metric of how you are faring in a city. And that is dependant upon your relevancy

Given that you are planning to go as a foreigner all things being equal you should go for a place where you speak the local language and it has a decent amount of mobility and social volatility.

Without mobility and social volatility you are essentially looking at people still latching onto social relationship they established early on such as high school or college, that makes harder to create connections for somebody who is just arriving.

Mobility I don't think I have to explain, social volatility I'd define it as uhmm...essentially if you don't see fist fights or people arguing and going at each other, you won't even enjoy the opposite side of the emotional spectrum . Which I suppose is what you desire (maybe I am projecting)

An international South American city where people make friends and fall off quickly: say Sao Paolo or Rio or Mexico City seems a good fit, but as I said depends upon your relevancy and ability to speak the language.