> I think people also like the idea that there can be these systems in place for hundreds of years, and an individual can come along and intelligence and hard work, can turn the systems upside down or develop something better.
That's what the Gracie family did with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Except they actually proved it worked by dominating the early years of UFC before they even introduced weight classes.
It seems like you would've mentioned your own success rather than those around you when talking about how feasible it is. It's a lot easier to say something is achievable when you've done it yourself.
And again, I think you would've simply responded "I have" rather than ask me what I think. Obviously I could be wrong.
Depending on the level of pedantry you want you could argue for either. Washington's measure went into effect first, on Dec 1st, 2013 while Colorado's went into effect on Jan 1st, 2014. Colorado opened retail shops that same day though while the first shops didn't open until July 2014 in Washington and they had a lot of initial issues around licensing leading to slower expansion.
Sure, but in reference to the comment "because of the time difference" it seems pretty obvious he was referring to time zones, not the dates the laws took effect.
Why do you assume there would be a balance? Maybe YC's reputation has just been going downhill for years. Also, OpenAI isn't part of YC. Sam Altman was fired from YC and it's pretty obvious what he learned from that was to cheat harder, not change his behavior.
The story I heard before the PR spin that came from Paul Graham later (where he tweeted that he never fired him and asked him to choose between YC and OpenAI) was that he was asked to resign. I don't have an official source, I heard this from multiple YC alumni. I don't know exactly what happened but based on what I've heard and actually having interacted with Sam Altman, it seems most likely to me he was asked to resign (which isn't technically being fired) because he does weird stuff. He claimed to be a chairman of YC which wasn't true, he barred other YC partners from running personal funds while he did it himself, and then all the further similar behaviors we've seen play out at OpenAI. Maybe you're right, but it seems to me he was "fired" and later there was some PR to smooth it over.
3% is 50% more than 2%, so it's nowhere near being within 1% of the target. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but there is an enormous difference between 1% and 50%.
I doubt this would do much to stop kids from looking at porn. It would only intimidate people that are afraid of breaking the rules, not people that just want to find what they're looking for. By this logic kids can't buy alcohol either.
> I doubt this would do much to stop kids from looking at porn
2/5s of Gen Z can't even navigate between folders on a computer, according to studies, with CS instructors saying they need to introduce directories as a concept. Yes, it will.
You are confusing present knowledge with capacity.
2/5ths of Gen Z not currently knowing how to navigate between folders in a hierarchical file system doesn't mean that 2/5ths of Gen Z is incapable of learning how to navigate between folders in a hierarchical file system.
The gap between present knowledge and capacity doesn't exist due to incompetence, it exists due to lack of motivation, and rest assured, once teenage boys discover how great boobs are, they'll have all the motivation they need to learn how to use technology to achieve the goal of viewing and appreciating that kind of material, pretty much regardless of how many restrictions you put in their way.
They'll make their own in a paint app or with ASCII art in a notepad, push come to shove, but that won't be necessary. It's hilarious to think that states have the slighest hope of winning the whack-a-mole game of trying to sue every single website on the entire internet that hosts any pornographic content.
I actually don't believe this; for the simple reason that if you put a filter in front of porn, "once teenage boys discover how great boobs are" isn't going to happen for most of them. You only seek out porn once you already know how "great" it is, chicken and egg.
How many people do you know whose first introduction to porn was "that's sounds cool, let me look that up?" Versus discovering it by accident, exactly what a law would effectively prevent?
Well, let me tell you how it happened for me. I must have been... probably 8-10. I saw something pretty innocuous in a magazine. An adult wouldn't have even thought it was pornographic; risqué at the most. But it aroused me. Then I went looking for that kind of stimulation again. Not actively, mind you, just stayed prepared for when the chance came. We didn't have Internet at home at the time, but if we had, you can bet I would have tried looking something up (not sure now how that would have worked in the late '90s, though).
Seriously? As a boy, I didn't need to see naked boobs to know I wanted to see more naked boobs. Seeing them clothed was enough for me to know I wanted a closer look at what was under there. I know the lengths I was willing to go to to sneak my first Playboy, so I know what I would have done if I'd had today's Internet access.
I'm not opposed to measures that try to make it harder for kids to get at porn. But it's going to be pretty much impossible to do that as long as we want adults to have unimpeded access to it, and we do.
One option would be to put the responsibility on the distributor, and not give them the option of a "you must be 18 to enter" fig leaf: if a kid is found in possession of porn that can be traced to your web site, you face serious fines and possible imprisonment. But that would basically eliminate porn sites for everyone, since it would be impossible to prevent it from finding its way to kids, and we can't have that.
Teenage boys in public school don't need to be the first in their peer group to view pornography in order to be exposed to pornography. No amount of technical measures will prevent this. They will literally dig old porno magazines out of dumpsters, procure VHS players to watch VHS porn, stay up until 4 in the morning to watch 30 second censored adult content commercials on TV.
But again, none of that will be necessary. Rule34 websites, imageboards, video game rendering glitches... the list goes on and on.
It's truly delusional to believe that it's possible to exhaustively censor imagery of the human body from the most motivated seeking/viewing demographic on the planet.
Are you by chance a woman? Were you homeschooled? Do you not have memories of being a teenage guy in the US public school system? I don't mean to denigrate you, I just cannot fathom how anyone can possibly credibly believe that it's even slightly realistic to keep teenage boys completely unaware of what boobs look like in the real world.
>They will literally dig old porno magazines out of dumpsters, procure VHS players to watch VHS porn, stay up until 4 in the morning to watch 30 second censored adult content commercials on TV.
Oh, man. You just reminded me of teenage me trying to make something out in scrambled porn on cable TV after midnight. You could kind of see the thrusting, but it was barely stimulating. Those were tough times, let me tell you.
I speak from what was nearly a universal set of experience of my peer group during my teenage years. Hell, I literally threw sleepover parties where my friend group would stay up all night to watch censored Girls Gone Wild infomercials, and this was in a relatively strict Christian household where my friends' M-rated Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games would be confiscated by my parents at the door and returned to them when they left.
I was literally looking up Zero Suit Samus fan art on my Wii's web browser when parents put parental control software on the computer.
When I was grounded from all computer usage, I'd pull up Catie Minx photoshoots on a first-generation Kindle, with the e-ink display that had image update latency measured in seconds.
All of my friends would go to these extents and more to access this kind of material. I was introduced to dumpster diving by a friend for this reason. I had another friend who got caught for shoplifting adult magazines from a bookstore.
I don't think the motivation and ingenuity in seeking adult content is generationally restricted or particularly unique at all, it seems to be true for every guy I know, including those who were born in the 50s, 60s, 70's, 80s, 90s.
I genuinely cannot comprehend the thought process of people who truly believe that a few targeted lawsuits at major porn sites is going to make a dent in what might be one of the strongest behavioral drives hardcoded into the human genome.
I'll also add that regardless of any access to web or printed materials, boys will get interested in boobs and seeing more of them by seeing them in the real world, on real women.
There is like no stronger instinct in human DNA than for males to be attracted to females. If it weren't that way our species probably wouldn't have survived down the millenia.
Back in my day the kids in my school didn't know what directories were either. But I taught a few of them how to remote shutdown other computers on the school network with cmd and soon everyone was doing it.
Because their use case dorsn't need it. They have TBs of data and fast CPUs (or it's all on the cloud - and the same applies), they can just crtl-f for the name of their file or the date.
Are they capable of using computers to achieve their goals? Yes. Does that require navigating folders? No.
EDIT0: I remember writing a 4 line program to crash the school computer (recursively executing itself) on notepad, and I'm pretty sure I didn't know what folders and directories were.
I can also attest to many of my coworkers not understanding what file extensions are, while being over 40 and working in aeronautics.
I didn't mention "porn", and there's a reason I included domestic violence simulations in list of specific things they're targeting; when phrased like that it sounds like a reasonable category to ban. I haven't played that specific game but it certainly sounds close enough that it could be caught even if not intended (and maybe it is intended - even if I trust what people say on the internet and the game is well-meaning, that doesn't mean it is actually healthy or sane).
If it really is an example of a rare false positive, a manual fix for that one specific game is a reasonable thing to seek, without giving the pedos their heyday like most of the comments here suggest.
You might disagree with me and others here and even want censorship for games. But don't you think it's should be regulated by your local government for your specific country or by whatever regulator there is where you live?
Do you really think Visa and MasterCard should be making decisions what is acceptable for like everyone?
Otherwise any random weirdos from UK or Australia will censor what are you allowed to watch or play in the US.
And China can also put pretty good pressure on payment processors too. They'll certainly want many games gone since they are worse than pedos for CCP.
> One piece of evidence against this is that the primary source linked above no longer works at OpenAI, and hasn't chosen to blow the whistle on the supposed fraud.
Everywhere I worked offered me a significant amount of money to sign a non-disparagement agreement after I left. I have never met someone who didn't willingly sign these agreements. The companies always make it clear if you refuse to sign they will give you a bad recommendation in the future.
That's what the Gracie family did with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Except they actually proved it worked by dominating the early years of UFC before they even introduced weight classes.