considering how unsustainable this whole AI Business is and how much it ruins everything, I can't wait for the crash.

Why did we listen to the Worldcoin guy again?

I can't wait for this to happen. I live far enough from the US to not be super affected by this crash and hopefully I will be able to stock up on disks and parts once the prices drop.

Because he killed the Open part of openai and the PEs went nuts

While the observations are measurable correct, are we not antropomorphosising a bit too much here?

That debate is 90% of the article.

I mean, even the debate still goes down that path on both sides. What even.

> but to my dilettante, critical eye it really looks as though there is a hell of a lot of learning happening in the convnet also.

Yeah it feels like they constructed the conclusion and worked backwards from there. I'm not seeing how their claim has much merit.

> A bunch of rotten fruit is _exceptionally valuable_

> right now I'm in a position where I could really use truckloads of rotten, inedible peaches if I could get them for free.

These two statements contradict each other. If you are pushing to get something for free (and seems like you wouldn't pay for them, or wouldn't pay much for them, instead opting to do without), then they are absolutely not exceptionally valuable from the sell side.

I would pay for it - I meant this in the context that people here are getting paid to destroy value. Also don't get the downvotes, improving soil efficiently in large quantities is an interesting question a lot of tech people (being city people) never have to care about.

If rotten fruit was exceptionally valuable, then people would be paying exceptional amounts of money for it instead of wondering where they can get truckloads of it for free.

Right? It's not exceptionally valuable. It has some nonzero value doubtful that matches the cost to collect it and get it to the people who want it.

Someone needs to put them in tanks for long time and make something very valuable like this:

https://en.excaliburshop.com/catalog/item/8951/fleret-merunk...

That is just a subreddit, I don't really see where it describes the problem.

Anyway: It's because on the Mercator projection, it is a small point in the bottom right that easily gets overlooked or accidently cropped out.

You're right I should have explained rather than throwing a link. Poor Tasmania suffers the same fate, even among Australians though I think the reason is more cultural

> There's plenty of freshwater fish that are farmed around the world. Trout, tilapia, etc.

Not to a level that could feed the entire country, surely.

No, but mostly for economic reasons. You can farm a whole lot of fish in aquaculture - it's just more expensive than importing wild caught fish.

The numbers look pretty insane, you can raise many tons of fish in relatively small volumes of water (several hundred kg of fish per year per cubic meter). You just gotta build the ponds/tanks/cages, and the infrastructure to filter the water, supply the oxygen and deliver the feed.

Why? If you have the money, the equipment, and the climate, what's stopping you from shifting agricultural production from one good to another on any scale you like? It's often as simple as the government saying "you know what, from now on, we're subsidizing beans instead of corn".

Barring some planetary-scale cataclysm, most of Europe and the US are at no real risk of starving. There are other countries that are at a real risk, but the map doesn't make a clear distinction between "red as a matter of convenience" and "red because they physically can't do it".

There is a difference between 'can produce the food with the climate' and 'should produce the food with the climate'. Comparative advantage crops up yet. Iceland can grow bananas by magma but they are grown slower and have more expensive labor than tropical banana growing countries.

> If you have the money, the equipment, and the climate, what's stopping you from shifting agricultural production from one good to another on any scale you like?

Then we will lack whatever was produced on the place where you those new ponds with huge amount of fish.

This argument does not work, because we are not limited by available space in total agricultural output. Just consider the Netherlands: Second largest food exporter despite the US being >200 times larger.

Most of the richer countries/trade unions have a large meat surplus that could be easily shifted to something else, too.

Fish don't care about soil quality or level ground. If anything fish ponds can benefit from height differences because that allows you to flow water through multiple ponds before pumping it back up

Obviously nations do have limited surface area and creating new agricultural areas for them would be to the detriment of forests and "nature"

What's stopping us from shifting agricultural production, is probably the same that's stopping us from fixing climate change.

If I read the study correctly the bar isn't to feed the entire population exclusively on fish, only to cover the expected ratio of fish in the diet.

> they thought I was talking Nazi propaganda!

well, I mean, listen, if it's part of the census, that's... still government-level racial discrimination. It might not be a duck, but this thing has a certain duck-shaped silhuette.

You're an idiot.

But I'm an idiot every day too, so I can relate. We can only learn from these mistakes, keep it up!

Overdramatised claim - I feel most if not all days of the past had this property. Something is always happening, and especially recent events always feel more significant because they're new in memory.

well, I guess I left Ubuntu just in time for the inevitable AI enshittification.

I stayed even as Unity and Gnome 3 made the rounds (which I was also unhappy about), but changed a month ago to a European Linux and Desktop Environment.

Well lets just hope this AI is not a burden on us.