> They sent thoughtless, form-letter thank you emails to 157 people. That makes me less sympathetic to the vitriol these guys are getting not more ...
> Heck Rob Pike did this himself back in the day on Usenet with Mark V. Shaney ...
> And yes this is annoying to get this kind of email no matter who it's from ...
Pretty sure Rob Pike doesn't react this way to every article of spam he receives, so maybe the issue isn't really about spam, huh? More of an existential crisis: I helped build this thing that doesn't seem to be an agent of good. It's an extreme & emotional reaction but it isn't very hard to understand.
You're misreading my comment. I understand Rob Pike's reaction (which is against the general state of affairs, not those three individuals). I explicitly said it makes sense to me. I'm reacting to @crawshaw specifically listing out the names of people.
No. There are a countless other ways, not involving AI, that you could effect an email being sent to Rob Pike. No one is responsible, without qualifiers, but the people who are running the AI software. No asterisks on accountability.
Nobody sent a thank you letter to anyone. A person started a program that sent unsolicited spam. Sending spam is obnoxious. Sending it in an unregulated manner to whoever is obnoxious and shitty.
That a majority of businesses fail over a given duration of time. It’s probably true on a long-enough timescale, but the idea that the majority of businesses fail within one year or ten just seems completely dubious. How is a business defined? How is failure defined?
Ignoring the available data indicating that it is the case, I'm curious about why this seems dubious to you in the first place?
Starting and maintaining a functioning business is difficult; the default outcome is failure (the end of the business as an operating entity) and you have to work to prevent that from happening every day that you want to remain open.
And I've never seen a claim that the majority of businesses fail in a year. Most anecdotes say a majority fail within 5 years, which seems to be approximately correct based on US data.
You framed it that way. This is an article about how the US shut down every offshore wind farm project. People are here discussing the fact that the us shut down every offshore wind project. You came in and said Sweden did it too. Setting aside the fact that they did not do that, they blocked some projects, not all - you don’t even know what “it” is because the US did not give a rationale.
reply