Wikipedia has a whole list of citations on this very sentence lol.

There is near unanimous consensus among economists that tariffs are self-defeating and have a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff

Tariffs are a net negative. Always. The things produced will not be competitive on the global market, if they were, we’d already be making them. The higher prices always destroy more jobs than they create. Retaliatory tariffs destroy even more jobs. The higher prices drive down demand and make the working class consumer poorer. Always.

There’s no economic upside to tariffs, over any time horizon. They create a small number of jobs in a specific sector at a very expensive cost. Some politicians might decide that the enormous economic cost is worth it for other reasons, but a net positive they are not.

I wouldn’t base your decision on what Lemmy says. They’re pretty unreasonably salty about the game. Reviews from players are very positive and the game’s only $23 right now.

• Despite what they’re saying, there is actually a lot of legitimately interesting and sometimes fantastical biomes and this update has added even more.
• There are a lot of different parts of the game that you can pretty casually engage in. Various missions, settlements, settlement management, ship collecting, manufacturing, fleet management, trading, piracy, archeology, and more.
• It’s a relaxation game for me. Just hop on, pick a direction, and go. Do whatever piques your interest in the moment.

If “casual” and “relaxing” are dirty words for you, then it probably isn’t up your alley. It’s certainly not going to be intense and action packed (though it does have its moments). But it’s a good game if you, like me, sometimes get tired of the sweaty online shit, crunchy brain melting games, and the overall weight of life in the real.

I work at a pretty progressive company (comparatively but definitely not perfect) and DEI there has nothing to do with preferential treatment, nor does it need to be.

The fact is that if you want to hire the top X people in the labor market, but your hiring and business practices exclude, say, half of that market, you absolutely will not get the actual top X. You will have to reach deeper into your half and be forced to pick people that are less qualified and/or capable.

So DEI, at least where I’m at, is about widening that pool so that you can actually get top talent. That means reevaluating your business practices to figure out why you’re excluding top talent. Maybe your recruiters always go to specific colleges for recruitment and certain websites. Maybe just the way they’re talking to candidates is more attractive to a certain type of person. Maybe you’ve got hiring requirements and an interview process that is not actually predictive of success. Maybe candidates are looking for some benefit that you’re not offering. Everything needs to be looked at.

For example, “Women just want more flexible working arrangements so that’s why we can’t get them” is something I hear often. Well, have you actually evaluated why your company is so inflexible? Is it actually necessary? Or are your executives a bunch of people who learned how to manage in the 20th century and haven’t changed since then? Maybe there are things you can do to enter the 21st century and make room for more women, not just because they’re women, but because you gain access to people who are actually better at their job than the ones you’ve had. Not every company can be supremely flexible, of course, but the number of times that inflexibility is actually necessary of much smaller than its prevalence.

The demographic breakdown of your workforce is a quick and easy weathervane to help figure out how these efforts but of course they’re not everything. Diversity comes in maybe forms, not just skin color and genitals. But in my company they’re used in a backwards looking manner, to see how new policies are working, not for quota filling and preferential treatment.

I feel like this one is going to fly over a lot of heads. Bravo.

Just a SWE baffled by people who have no idea what they’re talking about farming upvotes by demonstrating “The Internet is a series of tubes” levels of cluelessness.

Yes, I’m sure the phds and senior SWEs/computer scientists working on LLMs never considered the possibility that arbitrary code execution could be a security risk. It wasn’t the very first fucking thing that anybody involved thought about, because everybody else but you is stupid. 😑

One of the biggest areas of ongoing research is about incorporating data from outside systems, like databases, specialized models, and, other specialized tools (which are not AI based themselves). And, yes, modern models can do this to various extents already. What the fuck are you even talking about.

Yeah it’s crazy. To me, respect for the presidency keeping it crime-free. People committing crimes in pursuit of the presidency or while in its office should be harshly prosecuted, not let off.

Your inability to come up with a way to produce evidence doesn’t make the strong atheist’s stance unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable isn’t “We can’t produce any evidence that would falsify the claim right now.” That would take us to an absurd definition of the word where any scientific theory that requires more advanced technology than we currently have is “unfalsifiable.” That’s not what the word means.

The difficulty in proving that God exists isn’t what makes theism unfalsifiable. You shouldn’t make any assumptions about what can or cannot be proven true at some point in the future. What makes it unfalsifiable is that there’s no rational way to prove that God doesn’t exist, not because of an inability to collect evidence, but because the logical framework constructed by religious claims forbids it. Strong atheism has forbade no such thing. There’s no equivalence here.

Strong atheism is, in fact, a religious belief: claims of the non-existence of gods are no more falsifiable than claims of the existence of them, so in order to “know” there is no god one must have faith.

Um… Show evidence that a god exists. Poof, you have falsified the claim that no god exists. Pretty easy, actually.

ITT: A bunch of people who have never heard of information theory suddenly have very strong feelings about it.

Models are not improving? Since when? Last week? Newer models have been scoring higher and higher in both objective and subjective blind tests consistently. This sounds like the kind of delusional anti-AI shit that the OP was talking about. I mean, holy shit, to try to pass off “models aren’t improving” with a straight face.

I think the real chaos is how it would affect dates. “The store is closed on the 25th” now would necessitate specifying the exact hours and dates because it would likely bleed from the 24th or into the 26th. Anyone filling out a form would have to be careful to check the time to make sure they get the date right. Even just the simple statement “Let’s get together Tuesday” becomes ambiguous.

It would be pretty dumb to add all that confusion to the vastly more common use case, for what?

They’ve got more pressing issues to deal with. Trans people aren’t going to ban themselves from bathrooms.

Love that the picture associated with this article is Trump staring into the eclipse. Fucking moron.

If we’re in a simulation, it’s probably a massive universe-spanning one. We’re just a blip, both within the scale of the space of the universe and within the history of time of the universe. In that case, we’re not important enough for a simulation creator to even care to adjust our capabilities at all. They’re not watching us. We’re not the point of the simulation.

Seconded, though I would advise getting the DLC after completing the main game.

It can’t be expressed in any integer-based notation without an infinite number of digits. Only when expressed in some bases which are themselves, irrational. It’s infinity either way.

The number which famously has an infinite number of digits? I thought we were arguing against the real-ness of infinity.

Also note: the method I was describing is one of the ways in which pi can be calculated.