It's because people are living longer and their government retirement plan savings aren't enough to support living that long. Increasing the retirement age means you spend another five years paying into your retirement fund and have five fewer years to spend it. If you have additional retirement savings of your own, you can still retire earlier.
That depends on what driving it. If it’s because the budget was unsustainable and needs to be cut, that’s bad. If it’s because people are living longer, then it’s just an unfortunate consequence of good things. I suspect it’s the latter.
I don't know if I would so easily conflate necessity to political legislation. Both politics and politicians are very commonly out of touch with average citizens and what they need, and often ignore the policies that would benefit the state the most in favor of pursuing personal ideals and maintaining political positions and power. If a policy is good for a state 20 years down the line, but will cost them political positioning in the meanwhile or challenges their notions on what they are "suppose" to do either ideologically or socially, or results in their often substantial personal investments having lower returns, I wouldn't often bet on them choosing the state over themselves.
While 20% of their population is foreign and their birthrate is below replacement, this economic issue shows why it's a failure. Foreigners are too well integrated which prevents the kind of dynamism that is needed in all territories that boosts the economy. Britain should set the standard.
Well, we are always using our internal models for work like this. When our internal models and what we say don't match reality, we might call it "hallucination" or "getting it wrong" or even "lying".
When we get it right — our internal model matches reality, and we also say something that matches reality — we call it "truthfulness", and it's super valuable.
But I think there are two really different sources of hallucination / inaccuracy / lies. One is that the internal model is wrong — "Oops, I was wrong. The CVS isn't on Main St." The other is when we decide to deceive. "Haha, I sent you to Main St. CVS is really on Center Rd." Two very different internal processes with the same outcome.
If we were only engaging in model-based inference, then we, too, would always be hallucinating. But the very thing you're pointing out -- that we act differently when our internal model is wrong vs. when it is right -- is the crux of the difference. We use models, but then we have the ability to immediately test the output of those models for correctness, because we have semantic, not just syntactic, awareness of both the input and output data. We have criteria for determining the accuracy of what our model is producing.
LLMs don't, and are only capable of engaging in stochastic inference from the pre-defined model, which solely represents syntactic patterns, and have no ability to determine whether anything they output is semantically correct.
I've always found this reasoning insane. People are in a position where they want, or feel it's the only option, to kill themselves. And someone suggests the problem is access to the ability to do so, rather than what lead them to feel that way?
Guns, drugs, knifes, rope, exhaust, whatever. These always become the focus when a kid kills themselves. How about the circumstances that led to it? Suicide is still a problem is low gun ownership countries.
It is certainly part of the problem, but it's not the root cause.
Yes. Access to and knowledge of firearms dramatically increases the lethality of suicide attempts.
But in this case, the kid was scammed for nudes and then blackmailed with them. Without easy access to guns, he could have survived the suicide attempt, but there's no guarantee.
The root cause has more to do with childhood, internet access, and maybe even parent-child relationships.
To add to the sibling comments, Japan has very restrictive gun laws [1], but a suicide rate (12.2) similar to the US (14.5) [2]. Let me add that I find the instinct to restrict personal freedom as the very first measure very disturbing. As if the loss of freedom is not a harm in itself. More pragmatically, how many people will admit to being suicidal, if the immediate consequence is being locked in a padded room without so much as a shoelace?
To this American's eyes, not mentioning that at all is a glaring omission. I recognize they might not want to in the story of the representative's son (as it might come across as blaming the parents in a recent tragedy) but even though it's for sure relevant in the aggregate.
This is a yes-and situation (that is, the issues are orthogonal). There are several similar stories where firearms access is not a factor (Amanda Todd is one of the most well-known, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd). Various social media networks are implicated as factors.
The dystopian part is that they're testing a CV feature that has enough capacity to watch tons of streams constantly, and they don't _need_ your permission to run it. One would hope this will put the "haha my FBI agent must be bored I'm not worth it nothing to hide :)" fools in their place
something scary the "my FBI agent" people probably don't think about is that "their FBI agent" might not even be born yet, because they're putting all this stuff out into the public record to be analyzed who knows, maybe thirty years from now by an unimaginable regime by some "kid" (who's 30, and you're 50 or 60) that doesn't have an inkling of understanding or care for what was socially acceptable 30 years ago
The AI is just automating something they could hire an army of humans to do though, twitch usually has ~80k streams running, so it would take a few thousand workers but there would be no privacy blockers.
They do have your permission to run it, as soon as you start live streaming yourself you are giving anyone with the internet permission to access that data.
Consider the difference between noticing someone you happen to pass on the street and following that person with a video camera every time they are outside. Corporation should not continuously monitor people, even in public spaces.
It's difficult to simply live life and never, ever be in a public space.
No one has to publicly stream on Twitch or other services. If someone wants to broadcast video but do it privately, there are ways to do that.
It might be a small stage for a small streamer, but turning that stream on still means you're getting up on a stage, and you are implicitly accepting that you'll be watched. It's a choice to put yourself out there.
Yes. Related to the difference between “available” and “easily accessible” - a lot of information about e.g. politicians may be freely available, but it usually doesn’t make a difference unless a journalist makes it easily accessible.
I'm aware, I used to watch streams. Some of the comments suggest that publicly broadcast information is fair game for large scale, corporate sponsored data mining. The existence of such data mining has a chilling effect, causing people who may wish to broadcast to avoid it. Example are elsewhere in the thread.
I think they're playing netizens over this one, because they know this comment will come up and everyone will laugh and associate that feel-good emotion with their brand.
Basically you point the disk at the time you parked your car and then you've got two hours before you need to move the car (or go advance the disk by two hours, which is not legal but which everybody does. Those that forget do get a fine).
Israel has or had a cute device, it looks like a digital kitchen timer and flashes the parking fare zone and current time, when you reach the maximum time or run out of credit it turns off. It can also enforce "no return" rules and you can end your stay by pressing a button when you return to the car.
It is just fiddly to input the fare zone on those cheap rubbery buttons and you do need to take it to a store occasionally to fill it up with credit. If you want to overstay you would need two of these devices, I don't know if they had any security to prevent that. I can't find any pictures so I guess smartphones and a central database have made them obsolete.
reply