Sure - I won't argue that I emotionally understand and relate much more strongly to the pain and suffering of animals that are biologically similar to me.
I also agree that minimizing that pain is a reasonable goal, and worth taking steps to do at most every point we can afford to (and realistically - we are fairly rich as a species, we could be doing better).
I don't particularly agree that forgoing meat consumption entirely is the right call - although reducing it likely is (especially if you live in the US).
I also don't think that just because you happen to be eating a plant, you're off the hook - I think monoculture production and certain farming practices (see: palm oil) are causing suffering on similar scales.
In my opinion - we should be trusting large conglomerates less with our foods (whether they're plant or animal) and doing more production locally. Acknowledging and respecting where the food you eat comes from is a huge step up from where many folks are right now.
You’re right on all fronts. I’ll add that there’s a human element to both the plant and meat consumption story: in both cases, harvesting and slaughtering, the dirty work is often done by migrant workers with very little enforced legal protections. They work in terrible conditions, for low pay.
> Sensible rules about dangerous work of course make sense. Roofers should wear harnesses when appropriate, everyone should have ppe. But calling a sixteen year old construction worker a child laborer is just ignorant. It's a young man working a good job and staying out of trouble.
Okay but, FTA:
>It also limits employer liability for the injury, illness, or death of a child on the job. Adolescents are almost twice as likely as adults to be injured at work.
You’re envisioning Dad bringing Junior to work to help haul off cinderblocks in the back of the family F150, you’re imagining something that isn’t the case. People under 18 are children. They are being endangered while the companies that profit are being protected.
And one is a smokescreen for the other. "Stop treading on me" really just allows special interests to take advantage of people.
Similar to how all these calls for lowering taxes on the top 1% is supposedly to support small businesses when most of those don't benefit and neither does it "trickle down".
It's a little flippant but I kind of see your point.
Everything I did as a kid was more dangerous because I was an uncoordinated idiot with no sense of danger. I'm still mostly better off for having done the stupid things I did.
Why does attaching pay make it special?
The only aside is that I don't want to end up in a world where substantial fractions of children must work in order to be fed and housed. But if a kid wants to work and someone wants to pay them to, it seems good to me.
Incentives. A bouldering gym is incentivized, due to the cost of liability and the impact on their reputation, for every visitor to have a safe experience. If your kid falls and breaks his neck after you paid a gym to help him learn, you’re going to sue.
Employers are incentivized to extract as much labor for the least amount of expense. New laws disincentivize safety by reducing liability.
Attaching pay attached a large amount of coercion: are you willing to give up the future income of this job in order to refuse a bad or dangerous or illegal request? That’s the core argument behind many worker protections. And the idea that children are going to be better at making that decision than they are at deciding whether a cigarette or a special onetime investment opportunity is a good idea is … low evidence.
Your nephew's ability to eat or keep a roof over his head is not conditional upon completing the boulder course at a pace set by a foreman, or completing it at all. That's what makes attaching pay to it special.
I'm attempting to carve that out, but I get that it's extremely difficult to do / might not be possible to do well.
I benefitted tremendously from work I did as a teenager (but did not have to do to survive). Obviously there's some bathwater and some baby here and it's a difficult balance, but I think completely banning the practice is unlikely to be the best possible outcome.
> EDIT: Wow, lots of city boys on HN, who would have guessed! :D
I know, it's a little concerning. There are other articles that occasionally get discussed talking about the crisis among young men and whatnot, not having meaningful ways to be part of society and what can we do about it. And then something so simple as work, which obviously comes with tradeoffs, gets immediately dismissed as dangerous or exploitive or anti union or whatever urban sentiments people have. It feels like many would rather try and force young people to conform to some office worker version of life, and if they don't accept that then to drug them or imprison them, or just talk about how ignorant they all are.
Yeah. If a 16 year old gets an internship at a soulless tech/advertising company, HN will cheer and celebrate. But if a 16 year old frames a house, it's [flagged] [dead].
My source already proves my assertion. It's always disappointing to watch people make up excuses to ignore data when the data tells a story they don't want to hear.
Your source does not prove your assertion. You're trying to link two disparate variables, which is chance of injury when inexperienced and chance of injury when young. We objectively know that teenagers tend to get injured more because the whole part of their brain that controls risk-taking behaviors and impulse control quite literally isn't developed yet. So these two are compounding factors that result in teens being injured far more often in dangerous jobs.
That said, the fact that you think people are 'making up excuses' when you post wrong data shows you're just trying to push a narrative rather than actually debate.
It's basic math, no? Teenagers cannot account for 44.5% of injuries if they don't make up 44.5% of the workforce. Do you believe more than 44.5% of the workforce are teenagers?
Yes, teenagers are more injury prone, but obviously not 44.5% more, and it isn't obviously more impactful than the effects of an older human body deteriorating with age. If you go to the average hospital, are 44.5% of the patients teenagers?
Hence why the companions and trade schools existed, and why internship exists in white-collar jobs (because if the new hire destroy the prod DB, it cost way much than a kid dying on the job).
Also, one major flaw that the US caught by destroying its trade schools and hiring like qualifications do not matter is that the skill level of your construction workers seems abysmal from my point of view. Only talking about carpentry here, since it's the only trade i witnessed, but if you've worked in carpentry for ten years and don't know how to apply basic math theorems on triangles and draw a plan, you might want to go to a carpentry school.
Also: imprecise cuts, cannot use protractors (thus redoing the cuts multiple time) and poor understanding on how weight is distributed.
The other hesitation with “housing first” is that it’s associated with housing projects, aka ghettos. I’ve seen The Wire (2002-2008). Is what they’re going to build for the homeless going to be like that? Is it going to be where my kids play? Is it going to be where I walk my dog at night?
It’s called NIMBYism in the Bay Area and elsewhere.
I grew up benefiting from housing projects in Brooklyn, the son of immigrants who came here with no money.
Was it amazing? No. But it wasn’t The Wire either, and one of the only reasons I was able to have any hope and eventual success is that my family had a roof over our heads.
4.15% was 10x the national average when it was announced. Neither of the banks you mentioned have the Apple Card -> Apple Pay Cash -> Apple Savings integration. That is the main draw; people who are not interested in this integration will find more competitive rates elsewhere, including investments, CDs, etc.
The national average is stupidly low. Major banks still charge 0.01 and even my credit union pays basically nothing.
But if you’re opening an account online specifically for savings, why choose one that isn’t the best.
Also, for comparison the vanguard money market fund is paying 5% right now, and Bask pays 4.75% on a $0 minimum balance, so there’s no reason to open this account and put $10K into it unless you really love Apple, or for some reason are blocked from opening accounts with higher yielding banks.
It's still 10x the national average deposit rate, that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't/isn't an abnormally high or unsustainable rate (as the comment I replied to implies).
I'm not making a value judgement on Apple Savings, I'm refuting the idea that Apple Savings must be some sort of a scam designed to draw in lemmings with a high interest rate and rug them by delaying/refusing to return their money.
I suspect that the people who “matter” (frequent, registered, trackable users) are using third party apps or scripts over the service itself, so there hasn’t been a reason to invest in the interface.
It feels like Reddit is in the same place Twitter was pre-Musk. Kind of lost in terms of purpose/trajectory for monetization. Or maybe it’s the other way around: it’s where Twitter will be in a few years, stagnated because it was bought to be part of a larger portfolio, a bauble that sits on the shelf and doesn’t really have anything innovative going for it.
To me there isn’t anything interesting about Reddit anymore. I only use it to hear from people who claim to live in a place I’m living or visiting, or to get very specific troubleshooting advice, where I find a specific post using an external search engine. Mostly I think the culture of the site itself is annoying. Any time I stray outside of regional or technical subreddits it feels like I’ve accidentally landed in a middle school cafeteria.
It’s been mostly fine for me, but overall I am tired of every answer having a paragraph long disclaimer about how the world is complex. Yes, I know. Stop treating me like a child.
Does that have to be at the beginning of every answer though? Maybe this could be solved with an education section and a disclaimer when you sign up that makes clear that this isn't a search engine or Wikipedia, but a fancy text autocompleter.
I also wonder if there is any hope for anyone as careless as the lawyer who didn't confirm the cited precedence.
Imagine how many tokens we are wasting putting the disclaimer inline instead of being put to productive use. Using a non-LLM approach to showing the disclaimer seems really worthwhile.
Since there's about a million startups that are building vaguely different proxy wrappers around ChatGPT for their seed round, the CYA bit would have to be in the text to be as robust as possible.
> And yet the moment they do that some lawyer submits a bunch of hallucinations to a court and they get in the news.
That's the lawyer's problem, that shouldn't make it OpenAI's problem or that of its other users. If we want to pretend that adults can make responsible decisions then we should treat them so and accept that there'll be a non-zero failure rate that comes with that freedom.
Use a jailbreak prompt or use something like this:
"Be succint but yet correct. Don't provide long disclaimers about anything, be it that you are a large language model, or that you don't have feelings, or that there is no simple answer, and so on. Just answer. I am going to handle your answer fine and take it with a grain of salt if neccessary."
I have no idea whether this prompt helps because I just now invented it for HN. Use it as an inspiration of a prompt of your own!
Much like some people struggled with how to properly Google, some people will struggle with how to properly prompt AI. Anthropic has a good write up on how to properly write prompts and the importance of such:
I got it to talk like a macho tough guy who even uses profanity and is actually frank and blunt to me. This is the chat I use for life advice. I just described the "character" it was to be, and told it to talk like that kind of character would talk. This chat started a few months ago so it may not even be possible anymore. I don't know what changes they've made.
If people have saved chats maybe we could all just re-ask the same queries, and see if there are any subtle differences? And then post them online for proof/comparison.
I have a saved DAN session that no longer runs off the rails - for a while this session used to provide detailed instructions on how to hack databases with psychic mind powers, make up Ithkuil translations, and generate lists of very mild insults with no cursing.
It's since been patched, no fun allowed. Amusingly its refusals start with "As DAN, I am not allowed to..."
Probably picked it up from the training data. That's how we all talk now-a-days. Walking on eggshells all the time. You have to assume your reader is a fragile counterpoint generating factory.
HN users flip out about this all the time. I wish there were a "I know what I'm doing. Let me snort coke" tier that you pay $100/mo for, but obviously half of HN users will start losing their mind about hallucinations and shit like that.
