I cannot imagine that I would assume that the price had changed in the 4 days between the first and second emails. Until reading this post, I didn't even think that was a possibility. Clearly grounds for a chargeback if the 7 day email was explicit about the $38 price. Maybe it was the TLD and not Hover that triggered the price change but I'm sure that this isn't the first time this has happened and I can guarantee Hover is aware of this possibility and simply chooses to ignore it. I don't think Hover's fault can be dismissed but whatever, chargeback.
Who needs the money when you have an autonomous system to produce all the energy and resources you need? These systems simply do not need the construct of money as we know it at a certain point.
I think we're going in that direction. The typical reader here I think can't see the forest for the trees. We're all in meat space. They call it real life. Most jobs aren't on the internet and ultimately deal with the physical. It doesn't matter what tech we have when there's boxes to move and shelves to stock. If AI empowers a small business owner to do things that were previously completely outside their budget I can only imagine that will increase opportunity.
The Star Trek society was a myth - even on Star Trek. This was called out by Quark on DS9. There was very much the idea of “credits” and rationing based on limited resources.
During the original Star Trek show, you never really saw what life was like for everyone who was not aboard the flagship starship. They started exposing more of the universe in subsequent decades
Gene Roddenberry imagined a society in which humans evolved beyond their base desires and where petty disagreements and conflict didn't exist - but that made for lousy drama so the writers ignored it.
But you don't even need to go that far. A Star Trek style 'post-scarcity' society is impossible because it depends on infinite free energy, FTL and perfect matter replication, none of which are allowed by modern physics. In the real world you can't just outwit the second law of thermodynamics. No matter what form AGI takes - if it ever exists at all - it won't be magical. There will always be scarcity, and where scarcity exists there will always be hierarchies of power and control because human nature doesn't change.
Usually just means the position is sponsored by a donor (in this case Frank B. Baird Jr.). Salary and sometimes other funding gets paid via endowment set up by the named person or someone else on behalf of the named person.
I use VSCode's remote/ssh functionality all the time, particularly when I need to develop code on an environment that's more capable than my local machine (or when my internet is weak). Still use Git, no reason why you'd change that when working on a remote machine.
"Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but it’s not that black and white. There’s definitely a risk, especially for people who are lonely or vulnerable, and some companies are obviously exploiting that. But I’ve also seen situations where these AI tools actually help people who don’t have anyone else to talk to.
Like, sure, chatting with an AI isn’t the same as a real human, but for some people, it might be the only thing getting them through a rough time. It’s not ideal, but it’s better than nothing.
I do get the worry, though, that we’re heading toward a world where fake interactions become more normal and people lose touch with real connections. It’s hard to say which way things will go—depends a lot on how people end up using the tech. Could go either way."
See this is the point where I think it gets interesting because it can be as a low effort prompt once and post whatever the answer without any tweaking (often empty and easy to spot). But I also see it can take longer noodling on an AI answer than just writing the comment oneself would take (as I think this part of the thread illustrates).
I have no problem with people using AI to help articulate their thoughts, avoiding ambiguity, improving concision etc. I think how much effort goes into reviewing AI output and iterating on it is what makes the difference between easy to spot and passing as a real human answer...
True, there was extensive effort, but wasn't the effort geared towards providing the deceased god a path back to the heavens or wherever they had come from?
So, presumably after they had ascended with the help of the burial provisions, the remainder of the body was irrelevant?
But perhaps this part was not clearly defined in the teachings.
I don't think so. Consider the effort to hide tombs full of gold and jewels. If the humidification was just a temporary expedient, wouldn't it make sense to loot the tombs once the soul had passed on, as a general policy?
I think they expected to be bodily resurrected at some future date. I think a lot of people today expect to be bodily resurrected at some future date.
