With a functional government, antitrust enforcement would prevent a single company from driving economy-wide price inflation out of an attempt to starve its competition. Since we don't have a functional government, we'll ungracefully take this up the ass.
Sure thing. Are they? And also, why would they do that? Do you think OpenAI wants to enter into the DRAM manufacturing business? Or were they looking for a way to take as much supply away as possible - paying for the wafers instead of finished DRAM?
My word, how lacking in imagination. Are you forgetting that there's something that OpenAI does that requires lots of RAM and that OpenAI are very much in bed with not one but two GPU makers (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45521629) they could send the wafers to to build hardware for them?
> My question is why does anybody have to be liable at all?
This question mistakes what civil law is doing. A more accurate framing would be, “why does anybody have to bear the loss?”. But of course, somebody must. So the task of civil law here is to determine who. Certain policy choices will align better or worse with a sense of fairness, better or worse with incentives that could reduce future losses, etc.
"The loss" is already performing an abstraction to create something generic that can/must be assigned. The person who died is dead regardless of the creation of that assignable loss.
If there are too many instances of people dying in such situations, then the fundamental way to solve that is to prevent such situations from existing. A specter of civil financial liability is but one way of trying to do this, and having judges create common law theories is but one way of assigning that liability. Relying on those methods to the exclusion of others is not a neutral policy choice.
I think it is more that a greater number of products were heavily marketed by a greater number of companies. My social feeds were flooded with single-product companies and online-only companies aggressively selling all kinds of gear and gadgets. Travel pillows (like 5 different brands), ski socks, luggage, exercise equipment, etc etc. Not gonna lie, I bought some stuff I likely would not have otherwise!
Same. I repeatedly kick myself for not getting the 128GB version, although not for the GPT-OSS model because I really haven’t been too impressed with it (through cloud providers). But now it’s best to wait until the M5 Max is out due to the new GPU neural accelerators that should greatly speed up prompt processing.
I’d strongly advise ditching Ollama for LM Studio, and using MLX versions of the models. They run quite a bit faster on Apple Silicon. Also, LM Studio is much more polished and feature rich than Ollama.
> But I'm also growingly sympathetic to the idea that telling people they are, in fact, traumatized, is not healthy
If the message is, "you are traumatized and therefore permanently damaged", you're right - that's not healthy and also not true. But if the message is "you are traumatized and need to process your trauma", then it's more like telling someone that they have a treatable injury. I think this a pretty critical distinction that rarely gets addressed in these kinds of discussions.
Discovering you have trauma is a kind of diagnosis, so now you can figure out the kind of professional help you need.
I don't think there's really an epidemic of trauma hypochondriacs. It's not an excuse to play victim or anything. It's simply important to recognize that trauma means you're probably not going to get better on your own, and you should find help.
> It's simply important to recognize that trauma means you're probably not going to get better on your own, and you should find help.
There is no evidence for this, and it is exactly the harmful mindset being criticized. Developing PTSD from traumatic events is the exception, not the rule. The majority of people do get better on their own.
No, you seem to be confused about the definition of trauma. This is important.
By definition, people who undergo traumatic events do not generally get better on their own. If they get over it easily, it's not classified as trauma.
Trauma is not defined by the event itself, but by the person's reaction to it. When you say the majority of people overcome trauma on their own, that is by definition false.
If you have a bad reaction to an event but it goes away within a week or too, it's classified as an acute stress reaction. Not trauma.
> But if the message is "you are traumatized and need to process your trauma", then it's more like telling someone that they have a treatable injury.
There is a problem of diagnosis, trauma is not as objectively diagnosable as physical injury. If somebody falls out of a tree and stands back up, nobody tells them they probably have broken legs because that obviously isn't true in this instance even if it might usually be true for somebody in their circumstance. But if somebody experiences something that might usually traumatize a person, it is harder to objectively determine if that specific individual is actually traumatized. If somebody is, against apparent odds, basically fine, it is at least conceivable that trusted authorities could gaslight that person into believing they are actually traumatized, in a way that causes that person to become in fact traumatized.
> it is at least conceivable that trusted authorities could gaslight that person into believing they are actually traumatized, in a way that causes that person to become in fact traumatized.
Where are you getting this idea from? That's not a thing.
If someone is so resilient they aren't traumatized by an event that would be traumatic to many others, you think they'll then be genuinely traumatized by someone... telling them they're traumatized?
At worst, being told you're traumatized when you're not, is going to result in a couple of visits with a therapist who will then assess that you seem fine.
> Where are you getting this idea from? That's not a thing.
It absolutely happens with kids who fall on the playground and similar minor traumas. If the parent freaks out the kid will cry and cry. If the parent laughs, the kid will shake it off and laugh. I don't think it's completely outlandish to speculate that this kind of effect might come into play in more serious situations than falling off the monkey bars.
I've seen similar with kids? Indeed, it is easily seen as one of the reasons they form fears to many bugs. Parents freak out over the bug that wasn't bothering a kid enough times, and the kid will eventually build a fear of bugs. (Or snakes/spiders/etc.)
Ok, but that's not what social workers etc. do. They don't tell kids how they should be reacting to an adverse event. They observe how a kid is already acting in response, to determine if something was traumatic, and then if therapy will help.
They're not telling kids to be terrified of something that the kid has already dealt with.
Uh, maybe we've met different social workers? Because I've absolutely seen that happen before.
Which, fair that you can easily catch yourself in a 'no true social worker' scenario. But it definitely happens. Especially with how little training we dedicate to camp counselors and such.
I think you're both right, but you're talking about different things. People (as in mankind, the human species) do have the ability to bounce back from severely traumatic circumstances. But people (as in most individuals) don't often have the kind of coping skills that would let them tap into this capability. Fortunately, they can be learned and applied even in adulthood.
To heal trauma, you have to actually feel your feelings, without getting sucked into them. If you continually repress/avoid/try to control them, you won't get better. If you wallow in them, you also won't get better.
I think this latter point is what causes some people to think that it's harmful to tell people that they are trauma victims, because they might develop a victim mindset. But people who subscribe to this view often go to the opposite extreme and try to deny that trauma exists, which is just as harmful (and useless).
If you listen to the people who have bounced back - they’ll not tell you that their being traumatized is good. The truth is there is very little support for survivors, and a hell of a lot of support for perpetrators, who often abuse from a position of safety and authority. Of course very few are publicly against survivors, but an entire political structure is arrayed to cast doubt on any accusation, especially if a traumatized person acts traumatized, or the powerful person acts cool and rational.
Indeed, in the end it comes down to the skill of the therapist.
It's unfortunate both that more people don't succeed in getting the therapy they need. A skilled therapist can make an absolutely transformative difference, but only if they decide to find them.
There’s actually a more powerful legislative tool available: citizens can be empowered to sue on behalf of the state for what is effectively class relief, and to partake in the recovery (with attorneys fees). This creates a market incentive to prosecute claims like this, and it also circumvents arbitration. PAGA is such a statute.
PAGA can be, and sometimes is, explicitly waived by name and/or by description in arbitration agreements which purport to compel arbitration of even those claims. The Supreme Court recently upheld such a waiver with respect to the individual plaintiffs' claims, but it left open the possibility of a representative PAGA claim; the California courts are still working out whether PAGA still allows such a "headless" claim, with disagreement among different California couts and no ruling yet from the California Supreme Court.
The problem with PAGA in this context is that the citizen is also a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore can be bound by the arbitration agreement, making the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Federal Arbitration Act applicable. My proposal avoids this problem since the FAA doesn't prevent citizens from notifying government agencies and doesn't prevent government agencies from suing (except in the rare context of any arbitration agreement to which the government agency is itself a party).
But if you want citizens to have a financial incentive with my proposal, then sure, legislatively give the first person to notify CPPA / CA AG a cut of the eventual proceeds (to be split with anyone else who is the first person to successfully sue for or enforce a corresponding writ of mandamus), and create a way to track who that first notifier is.
reply