it's nondeterministic because we chosen it by having higher 'temperature' in settings. I bet if you run open weights model with temperature 0 and on the same device the same prompt and turn off parallelism you will have more deterministic result (excluding some floating point operations).
This is very simplistic and I would say there is more reason than only consumerism. People still might have kids they just have it less - they are happy to have only one kid because they fill fulfilled and also they cannot afford 2 or 3.
Standard and expectation also increased and even thought I grew up with 2 siblings in 2 bedroom apartment in Poland today nobody would want that - or good luck finding a partner that want that. You would expect to have house or at least 3-4 bedroom apartment to raise 3 kids.
Today also probably you need 2 cars instead of 1 family car because your partner also have to work. You probably also need extra money for babysitter or kinder garden because again your partner is working and probably less likely your parents nearby to help since most young people had to move to big cities to get a job.
The things you list as ostensibly different from consumerism are for the most part consequences and manifestations of consumerism. They are downstream from the consumerist ethos. So these are superficial distinctions.
Inquire into the causes. For example, why do people say they can't afford more children? Materially, we're the wealthiest we've ever been in human history. We are in the best possible position in human history to afford more children. The problem is that we have different priorities. Consumerism shifts our valuations.
Consider also the parabolic distribution of fertility. Who is having the most children and the least in developed consumerist countries? The poor and the rich are having the most. The rich, because within the consumerist calculus, the cost of raising children are minuscule as a fraction of their total wealth, even given their high material standards. The poor, because they can't compete in the consumerist game anyway (social programs that enable the poor to have more children, and perhaps a greater average religiosity, are also contributing factors; the latter shifts valuation).
The people having the fewest number of children are the middle class, because the middle class has just enough money to gain access to the fruits consumerism offers, but not enough to accommodate both the consumerist indulgence of them and large families.
This is where "keeping up with the Joneses" is most prevalent. This is where you find the most careerism; the poor don't have careers, and the rich don't need them. The middle class - perhaps especially the upper middle class - is in the fierce competition for marginal and petty gains of status over their middle class peers, and in a consumerist society, that is tied to spending on things other than what enables a family to have more children (costs whose growth, by the way, is logarithmic, not linear). The upper middle class is also perhaps best equipped to craft elaborate rationalizations for their lack of fecundity.
So you have to look at things systematically and in a systemic way.
I think you are collapsing too many different causes into a single explanation.
Yes, consumerism probably influences expectations and lifestyles. But many of the things I mentioned are not just superficial manifestations of consumerism - they are structural economic and social changes.
When people say they "cannot afford" more children, they usually do not mean literal starvation or inability to keep a child alive. They mean they cannot afford the living standard that modern society effectively requires or expects for a family with multiple children.
I mentioned, in Poland when I was growing up, it was normal for 3 kids to share a small apartment and for grandparents to help raise children. Today, many young adults had to move to larger cities for education and work, far away from their families. That removes a major support system.
Now both parents usually need to work, which creates additional costs: larger housing near jobs, childcare, kindergarten, transportation, often even a second car. These are not just luxury consumerist indulgences but practical requirements of modern urban life.
> Materially, we're the wealthiest we've ever been in human history.
But wealth being higher on average does not mean family formation became easier for the middle class. Housing costs in major cities relative to income are a huge factor, especially for people who are not poor enough to qualify for assistance and not rich enough to comfortably absorb the costs.
> Sorry, I'm a bit tired of acting like Germany only got the history of being on the west side of the iron curtain. It got both treatments.
Well glass that has half of water is still better that glass fully empty. Poland didn't get any war reparations and after being more destroyed during the war than germany (warsaw burned to the ground) and pretty much occupied for many decades after the war then how polish companies supposed to compete with any western economy including germany?
Many (especially Germans) try to wrap it falsely as charity and throwing numbers without context.
It is not true for the entire EU budget: the 2014–2020 MFF allowed up to €959.99bn in commitments, so Poland’s €77.6bn cohesion allocation was about 8.1% of the whole EU long-term budget.
For context this is like 0.7% of yearly German overall public expenditure go to Poland. And this money per year is also like 5% of state budget spending.
a big share of this money goes back to foreign companies in form of sales and contracts.
It was founded in Poland and by poles by I think it’s owned whole by foreign capital - hard to call it polish even though still listed on polish stock exchange. Google branch in Warsaw we wouldn’t call it polish either.
the question is if those links and thumbnail were back then on the front page / timeline. Because otherwise how you supposed to know about the news if you have to google it first.
Bubble popping, useless AI hardware sold off to creditors and scrapped to RAM sticks in SSDs for actual real world use case ? And eventually maybe later in a few years some actually useful and profitable real use cases for the current LLM generation are found.
Alternatively "AI" gets such a bad name regular people will go and burn it all down as long as it has "AI" even just in the name.
The point is that even if they do something 3x slower and maybe capable of 1/100 tasks they can still this do task 24/7, without holiday and never sick, they can also have more strength e.g in construction.
My smart vacuum is more dump than me when wiping floor and much slower than be but still greatly useful.
The problem - robots do break, they need constant maintenance, repair, and replacement (especially the smaller ones like the humanoids), and can go wrong in all sorts of situations. The costs for robot maintenance largely depend on the reliability of hardware and that should be included in the ROI calculation (which almost no one is doing right now)
that's the thing, what's the appeal of humanoid robots then? why not something more fit to the task? imagine if your roomba had legs because well that's what a human uses to move around when cleaning
Accessibility and a single chassis that does the vast majority of things. Even if they're never as fully dexterous as the average human (doubt it) they're still as dexterous as a somewhat handicapped human, which is already clearly enough to function decently in most of society and is far from useless.
If you want several bots all custom built to specific tasks, go for it. That will happen too. But a generalist has value of its own.
That would probably be an improvement. Floors are designed for people, and may have several levels. An ideal vacuum would probably look something like a centipede.
Anyway, the appeal would be that it can perform several tasks. It doesn't need to perform all the tasks a human can to fulfill that.
The problem with speed is that they usually are very fast for first few weeks and then suddenly much slower. They did such trick when they advertised Grok 4 fast ( dropped from 200 tps to 60tps)
I would like to mention that although I’m aware of the limitations, I think it is worth designing and advocating for web app standards that could even at some point become a viable competitor to native apps, especially for apps that really don’t need to be native/wrapped apps in the first place since most are CRUDs anyways.
Maybe this will be a catalyst towards further evolution of the web app as Android devs want to carve out some freedom from the world domination corporate shadow government walled gardens.
You're not wrong, but it will always be the case that the web platform lags native. There will always be stuff you can't do without a native client. The proportion of apps that it's viable to run as a PWA will probably increase over time, but the platforms have both the ability and incentive to stay out ahead.
reply