Still, I guess if you would care you could let the LLM perform loops with pangram tests, changing the text till it scores well enough.

"As long as" does a lot of work here, considering language barriers and (in my experience) generally less knowledge in off-shored centers.

But does human nature allow one member of the caravan having (a lot of) water, while everyone else goes thirsty?

yes? why is that even a question.

you have enough money to buy a phone and spare time to comment, just like me, while people die of hunger and thirst in Sudan: 50 dollars would buy life saving medicines and water treatment. but i spent it on a Spotify subscription and some weed.

also, i stepped over a homeless guy on my way into the grocery store last week.

>also, i stepped over a homeless guy on my way into the grocery store last week.

This.

The evidence that it's possible is all around us. Right in our faces. That people believe that, somehow, other people will start caring when it's me who doesn't have water is a bit naive. Why would people not just step over a hypothetical "homeless me" on their way to get a Starbuck's?

It's even easier to ignore if the vast majority of such people are not on the streets, but safely hidden away in crappy parts of town struggling to afford their rent and food. That way the privileged don't have to see them.

Not saying it's good or right, just kind of saying, I mean, of course it's possible. It's the way things work right now.

If the poster didn't notice it works like this, chances are, they were always one of the people in the caravan who had the water.

Last I checked it was about $3000 per life saved by the most efficient methods. Looking at effective altruism communities. Mostly malaria nets.

Arguably Sudan is a different caravan. And the totally destitute in most industrialized countries are a small minority. So, currently people can keep the mindset that they still have a chance. Once that illusion shatters, expect violence (which might not achieve anything).

It does when you abstract it to our current situation.

It's like having a caravan in which every oasis you pass you only get a miniscule amount of water to refill.

While another caravan of one, that you never see or interact with directly gets to gorge on the oasis... While simultaneously filling up extra barrels of its water to bring back home.

You don't know where this caravan of one is based nor do you ever see them... But everytime you go by the oasis it is noticeably worse for wear.

It sure seems like it with us having so many billionaires while there's still massive poverty at the same time.

And if you believe in the fair distribution of the benefits of automation and AI in the population. IMHO, this belief is the more unrealistic one, at least in the short term.

You first heard about this effect with the phrase "computer says no".

Claims from maintenance contracts in B2B depend on classifications like this. So, it is absolutely worth categorizing, for certain businesses.

On the other hand they would never be able again to leave their bunkers, given that it is not hard to assemble a DIY drone and equip it with some explosives.

> The capital-owning class owns the political apparatus

That is not nearly so uncontested, not even in the US. Did you forget how all the tech bros went to Trump's inauguration, bowing their heads and kissing the ring? With Trump being very small fry on the scale of "capital-owning class" this means there are other factors at work than just wealth dominating politics.

Also, the situation gets much more unclear in other countries. Otherwise, why wouldn't the most capital-friendly party rule in each and every country?

If you are that pedantic you could also ask if he is living without a mobile phone, without a car and without any modern electrical appliance phoning home. So, probably him being offline is not to be taken quite so seriously.

I'm pedantic because I'm on a website called hacker news...

As long as the costs (monetary and otherwise) of breaches are not (by and large) hitting shareholders and the C level, why would they pay for better security? And why would politicians depending on campaign contributions of tech companies force the mentioned groups to take on the full responsibility by regulating them?

So full disclosure I am working on this but my thought is basically this:

* Make Rust (or similar memory safe language) drop in replacements for C/C++ code

* the stick is Claude mythos and the like - scares CISO’s, shareholders, etc into urgency

* the carrot is - improve performance significantly where possible. Either through straight up better code OR through customizing hot paths for companies specific use cases

So for companies running large workloads it could be economical in two ways

I am not sure anything is scaring anyone into urgency as long as breaches are no great issue for the company (in contrast to their customers and/or affected third parties).

Also, more secure code might be performing better, it might also perform worse. I am not sure the concepts are completely orthogonal, but there is at least no clear causality.