This might be good ground for an adversarial collaboration.
It's difficult to take a context-less view of hard facts - e.g. rate of non-violent crimes committed per year is heavily dependent on whether the police are bothering to record crimes this year or not, and that's downstream of a political decision and a cultural impetus.
I'm not sure how a bet could be formulated, and it's possible that the process of formulating it would show we aren't in disagreement.
However, I wonder if you are looking at the successful outcomes without considering the unsuccessful outcomes?
A great engineering manager is likely great at engineering. However a great engineer is unlikely to be a great engineering manager - dealing with code all day is different to dealing with people all day. Of course, some can do both (and here you see a great engineering manager who is also a great engineer). My contention is that a minority of engineers (main focus is code) are suited to be engineering managers (main focus is people).
This is essentially the Peter principle. Peter is great at something, and keeps getting promoted until he reaches the level of mediocrity, where he stops getting promoted. Peter is clearly great at position n-1, but not great at position n.
the best managers are chosen to be strong performers in the task that they are managing other people to do.
The opposite is true in most situations, for example a great salespeople will often make a bad sales manager. This is Very Common. Eg https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/micromanagers-in-the-making-why-salespeople-struggle-to-lead.
Doing the task and managing the people doing the task are separate skills, and the existence of one doesn't imply the existence of the other.
I have the opposite experience. It delights me and I enjoy digging in deeper.
People are different!
Despite ceding this ground, I still maintain my fundamental belief that all human beings (and, increasingly I would argue, all life) are worthy of a deep and sincerely-held respect, regardless of any intellectual or physical discrepancies between them. This is not a utilitarian argument, but a deontological or virtue-oriented one, where the basis is one of universal love and compassion. No one should be deprived of a socially and physically healthy standard of living because of the circumstances of their birth or genetics. Nor are people's wants and needs more or less legitimate due to their intelligence, culture, belief or any other factor.
I want to see if you are consistent. Do you support banning abortion and abolishing the death penalty?
I can just make it look pretty and put commas and periods inside the quotation marks
Maybe it's from growing up with British English, but I think this looks much worse. Like unclosed or incorrectly closed parentheses.
This acquisition isn’t just about a license; it’s Polymarket’s homecoming, returning stronger and ready to serve American users once again.
Aahh... smell the AI.
6CO2
...6O2?
Suppose these parties do certain things destructive to the country but effective for gaining power, for example, populism.
I don't understand this, and the use of 'populism bad' in general.
I understand populism to consist of appealing to the mass of ordinary people and promising them things they want, in exchange for votes - even if those things run counter to the interests of established institutions and agencies.
How is this different to any other rational action taken by politicians seeking to be elected in a democratic society?
In a democracy, you need votes, and lots of them. People will give you their vote if they feel you will do good things for them. You hear... (read more)
The general thread of a number of artificial intelligence takeover stories (such as It Looks Like You're Trying to Take Over the World by the always-excellent Gwern) run along the following lines:
I imagine there are regulations - intended for business as usual - that are interfering with people adapting to the new situation.
Inheritance tax and 'vacant house' charges distorting the market value of houses.
Possibly - anti-hunting laws that stop any willing person from hunting deer themselves.
With businesses that have dependent customers, where pressure is put on the aging owner to have a succession plan - what stops a PE firm rolling up all such companies in an industry, for a discount?