Elevators tend to be restricted to a specific group of people (inhabitants, customers, employees, etc.) in a way that public transport is not. If an elevator smells like urine, has suspicious stains or trash, chances are I'd look for an alternative. But it just so happens that the elevators I come across tend to be clean, unlike the public transport.

And I say this as someone who still takes public transport a lot, but it's increasingly less comfortable.

That mostly depends on your previous diet.

> transliterations for some languages are so far off the native pronunciations

in fact the latin transliteration for English is off from the native pronunciation

They will be when our robot overlords want to get rid of us. :-)

This assumes robots would want to be friend with each other, because robots. They'd probably wipe each other out very efficiently too and they would probably be able to do it without the use of weapons, it would just be cyber warfare.

> these multi-billionaire corporations are taking everyone's honest work, putting it into a computer, and selling the output

And then there's the tens of thousands of people training models and making them freely available to everyone. What I fear most is that regulations introduced "to stop" the multi-billionaire corporations will in fact make sure they're the only ones with the resources to comply with the regulations.

I'm not arguing for nor against regulations, I'm simply commenting on the whole "well, it's technically not stealing, therefore it is OK" debacle, all that means is that legally speaking, it's OK, that doesn't make it ethical.

And if you don't arrest them, not only will they commit crimes, but a new batch of criminals will also commit crimes. This is not a question of enforcement or prevention, this is a question of doing both.

That's another way of saying about the same thing. Which, again, is intuitive and sounds correct. But again, most studies I've seen of this show no or only a very weak link between enforcement and crime rates. Except those issued by the police themselves. Where have you gotten this information?

Jan 2020 club checking in :-) I remember joking about a big pandemic being around the corner at my families New Year's party. Back then it was a few vague rumors from Chinese doctors that I was keeping an eye on but not taking seriously yet.

It's been crazy how much "always been at war with Eastasia/Eurasia" I've seen people around me engage in.

Social media delenda est. Reputation systems, politico-cultural tribalism, and human cognitive vulnerability w/r/t viral information have turned the entire cultural landscape into anarcho-1984.

A lot of that value is in the aspect of the sketch as a historical artifact. There's little present performance to speak of when it comes to Da Vinci.

That's simply not true. Almost all the value will be because it's attributed to da Vinci. You simply won't get the same valuation if it's attributed to a lesser known contemporary.

And you don't need to go historical. I just picked da Vinci as an example. If you or I made a balloon dog sculpture, it won't be valued the same as a Jeff Koons one [0]. Even if it's essentially identical.

There's a whole subset of the art market that is valuing on provenance not the physical object.

[0] I'm assuming you're not Jeff Koons. The problem with HN is that, sometimes, you are actually chatting to a celebrity in the field without knowing.

Well, the balloon dog example simply boils down to the fact that your work will only be seen as a rip-off.

> There's a whole subset of the art market that is valuing on provenance not the physical object.

Subset? I believe provenance is almost everything that matters in art, because it's what equips an artifact with meaning. Duchamp's urinal neatly exemplifies this.

The vast majority of art sold is for decorative purposes and is valued as such. There is a subset though that's sold primarily based on provenance.

Or to put it another way, most art sold isn't in urinal form.

> I believe provenance is almost everything that matters in art, because it's what equips an artifact with meaning.

I've never "understood art", but when you phrased it like that it makes perfect sense. To me, provenance just isn't interesting. So I judge the pieces as they stand in front of me.

There are essentially 3 ways to judge 'art'.

- Do I find this aesthetic

- Do I find this historically/culturally interesting or significant

- Do I find this a good investment

The problem is that people don't always make it clear which one they are judging by and end up talking past each other.

Arguably that $39 offers a lot more value by giving you access to valuable statistics than the $20 that gives you the opportunity to waste some time staring at the tele. And I'm not saying there's no value to entertainment, but there's plenty of more fulfilling things to do when it comes to entertainment.

I like how there's a u/subsimgpt2GPT2Bot that's being trained on the output of all the other GPT2Bot's