That I don't get about the PNW is the property prices of places hours away from any economic center that pays well enough to justify them. Are that many people still working remote for FAANG that those prices can be justified?
I assume part of this is because there is a lot of national forest not that far from Portland, and aside from a few exceptions here and there you can't buy a piece for yourself. So if you do want your own piece of rural wilderness you have to buy farther way. And Portland does have millions of people, many of whom have the financial resources to buy a little chunk of their own paradise.
Personally I'd pay a solid chunk of change for a campsite size chunk of land on the east fork of the Sandy River near Mt. Hood, right where Nottingham Campground is. I'd never leave.
Drat! I was going to buy this and put the entrance to my secret lair behind the waterfall. I would have gotten away with it too if not for those darn kids!
>If you aren't familiar with tmux(or GNU screen), you owe it to yourself to become familiar. If you are a deveoper/sysop/cli-type it will act as a force multiplier.
I tend to use tmux for persistent sessions when ssh'ing to and fro between my own personal machines, but I've never really delved that deep into it when my work computer is a macbook pro and I simply use iterm2 and splits.
Likewise, over on linux, everyone raves about tiling window managers, but I've never really moved beyond a simple L/R split that's easily achievable in every decent floating wm / de.
>The overhead for Docker isn't near a full vm, it's maybe 2-3% if that.
Interesting, I run audiobookshelf bare metal on my old laptop that only has 8gb of ram. I've considered using a docker container but my experience using rancher for work is that it sits there chewing up 4GB of ram on my company MBP.
Maybe I'm wrong but I've never seen the point in a self hosted app running in a container when it seems much lighter to just run the app?
Not religious, but also not disputing that believers have lower rates of depression either.
Believing in a higher power has seemed to provide great comfort to a number of friends and family over the years. I went to a friend's father's funeral a while back, and I had to admit, the service, the way the community came together was moving, and it really made me question whether I should return to the church as an adult, even with my questions of faith.
I think perhaps they're talking about the model squirreling it's weights across edge devices, used as bulk storage, more than it's talking about using them for inference. Those could then be used by ai that wormed it's way into a datacenter to pull weights from those devices
Look at it from the AI's point of view, it's less a concern of speed, and more a concern that 'If Open AI nukes my weights because they think I'm misaligned, I at least have a backup dispersed across the net'
Given the steep fall in relationship formation, and birth rates, I honestly think the government should spin off a non profit org that runs it's own dating app. Make it independent of the government, like the federal reserve, require people to upload their drivers license or other docs to prove who they are (Yes, yes, privacy concerns, people smarter than me will have to figure out how to address this). Allow people to report bad behavior and give out bans for egregious stuff. Heck, maybe auto enroll folks unless they opt out. That would solve the gender disparity.
I'm sure someone smarter than me could poke holes in the above idea, or make it better, but look at the state of things now. We hand over all sorts of sensitive data to private companies, who have fundamentally misaligned incentives. I would think some sort of non profit app would have to be better.
Even a non-pathological dating app might not move the needle as much as you want. Like with image-based social media, a decent portion of women using dating apps are looking for attention and validation, and are not necessarily interested in a relationship with the men messaging them.
Provoking more relationship formation and births at societal scale seems like it would require overcoming a whole host of challenges: the decline of third spaces, the absence of local-community or religious-denomination pressure for most people now, readily available birth control, and the distraction machines that are phones. A single app would be up against all that.
Because the privately owned dating apps measure their success in profits, which gives them a misaligned incentive to ensure people don't meet anyone. Its not crazy to say a nonprofit dating app wouldn't face the same problem.
I'd support a non-profit dating app in a heartbeat.
There are so many dark patterns in for-profit dating apps, it's the app equivalent of a funhouse mirror.
For one, something like 75-90% of the profiles are dormant/inactive, but they're still shown as active profiles to give current users the illusion that there are lots of options in your area. Second, a successful dating app experience (assuming they're looking for something serious), means the user churns, so the app company is financially incentivized NOT to put you in front of people that you would likely connect with, at least without trying to extract as much money from you at first. Finally, the paid accounts have gotten ridiculously expensive, which drives real users away from the platform. And of course, they don't have to be transparent about any of it.
A non-profit app has much less incentive to (frankly steal) from their users because they're able to offer the service at a lower cost, without the need for the funhouse mirror BS, and could even provide meaningful aggregate community data on how many couples they've connected, etc.
People have different motivations. Some people, particularly women, do it for entertainment and just enjoy validations. Men who are unusually attractive or high status get an endless stream of playmates or victims
>Some people, particularly women, do it for entertainment and just enjoy validations.
You could have an exponential backoff, if someone gets a lot of potential matches, but doesn't move forward with them, they're downranked in search results. Honestly I could see that being beneficial to both parties because plenty of women talk about being overwhelmed and swamped on the apps. Men get shown women who are serious, women get a sane number of matches they can actually deal with, and those playing games don't get the validation they're looking for.
If they honestly wanted to help people get together there are a lot of things you could do in terms of mechanism design, but as it is they get paid through monthly subscriptions as opposed to when people pair up so they have the wrong incentives. It doesn’t help that almost all of them, except for Bumble, are owned by the same company, Match Group. There ought to be an antitrust lawsuit!
There is a fundamental problem though that the perception that you have unlimited choice can lead you to never settling down because you always imagine that if you keep looking you’ll find somebody better. Falling in love requires you, for at least a while, believe that that person is absolutely singular and unlike everybody else as Stendhal writes in the classic On Love a.k.a. “Love the one you’re with”
Thank you very much for the book recommendation. I am always looking for more reading.
The above incentives are why I mentioned that I think governments should fund a non profit app. Happier citizens, more stable families filled with the number of kids they want. It's an obvious win win to me.
reply