Nobody will care that Stan from Flock drove his sedan to pick up his kid from soccer practice, stopped at the store to pick up milk, and then drove home.

That's not how people are using Flock data, and it's not the same. The people abusing Flock access are the people abusing people. So the equivalent would be for people using the anti-Flock employee data would be harassing those employees. Not sure what that is "telling".

All the stuff people are hacking into TUIs is honestly a bit silly, they're actually very inefficient for high fidelity UIs. Having worked in it and on it before while @ GOOG, the actual renderer in Chromium is an optimized thing of beauty. It really makes sense to leverage it. Appropriately.

But all of the above could (should) be done as a locally hosted web page via the existing codex CLI launching a local web server... rather than shipping an electron binary with its own entire fork of Chromium.

- nicer diff rendering, and directly mentioning parts of a diff

- Latex rendering (pretty annoying in the CLI, you have to actively tell Codex it's running in a terminal and replace Latex syntax with UTF-8 glyphs)

Lifetime earnings is most strongly predicted by IQ, then conscientiousness. So those with both are considerably more likely. Social connectedness is entirely dependent on personality as well - extraversion predicts this, and extraversion also predicts ones interest in financial incentives rather curiously

This is like that hoary chestnut about the Pentagon and pizza delivery orders. Military strikes, to hear the story go, are most powerfully predicted by pizza orders. But pizza itself does not cause wars (except in Chicago and New York City).

A nit, but the point is you can't distill these problems down to a single statistic and then do policy based on them (not that you were proposing policy).

Based on what? There is positive correlation between educational attainment and lifetime earnings, but that does not imply that education is an influencer. One reasonable explanation for that correlation is that one who has qualities and habits that allow them to do well in the education system are also qualities and habits that do well in the economy. Certainly, those with crippling disabilities or other life challenges that sees them do poorly in school are also understood to have no economic future due to those same disabilities/life challenges, so it seems we have an intuitive understanding of that to some degree.

To find influence we can't just pick a top economic performer at random and compare him to a poor economic performer. We need to find the same person with and without an education. Luckily we can essentially do that, to a close enough approximation, by looking at an average person in the past when people didn't seek education and an average person after seeking education became commonplace. Unluckily, primary school rose in prominence before we had good record keeping.

But, luckily, post-secondary education rose during the time where we started having great record keeping. Here's the thing: Incomes held stagnant during that time. Lifetime earnings did not increase for the individual after gaining a (post secondary) education. They made just as much when they didn't go to college. Those with high earnings were more likely to go to college by this time, sure, but that's not the same thing.

Despite the record keeping being poor, we do know that incomes did rise during the rise of primary and secondary education. So while a post-secondary education clearly has no impact on lifetime earnings, even if someone destined to have high lifetime earnings is likely to attend a post-secondary school, the effects of primary and secondary education remains less clear. However, during that time incomes continued to rise even when there was no meaningful change in the education received, so the correlation in that case is most likely just coincidence. There was a lot of economic change happening at that time that provides a much more reasonable explanation for why incomes were rising.

I have no idea whether there's an innate structure in people that's causally determinative of lifetime income. I don't think this kind of faux-axiomatic reasoning can get you to the kind of certainty you have here. I think this argument feels intuitively true to you, and maybe it could be, but maybe any argument is true.

Not meaningfully so. Life doesn't move that fast. There is only one year between when the average person didn't go to college and when the average person did go to college. More ideal would be to put the exact same person into parallel universes on those different tracks, but let me know when you figure out how to do that. In the real world, that is the closest approximation we can get. And what we were able to plainly observe is that there was no change in earnings.

Which is interesting as it pertains to your point as it is unlikely in a vacuum that two random average people would ever have the same earnings, so the fact that they landed in the very same spot does suggest that our approximation is much closer than it seems you want to believe.

> I have no idea whether there's an innate structure in people that's causally determinative of lifetime income.

Nobody does. There are plausible explanations, but we have no scientific evidence of what the "secret sauce" is. Which, with your recognizing that, makes your earlier claim of education influencing lifetime earnings even more ridiculous.

> I don't think this kind of faux-axiomatic reasoning can get you to the kind of certainty you have here.

You must have misread something as the only certainty I offered was that college hasn't lead to higher lifetime earnings for individuals, which we know is the case as we have comprehensive income data to prove it. You cannot both earn more and earn the same. Someone with high lifetime earnings, statistically, also having a college education is not the same thing.

There is one caveat here. We can see in the data around the top 1% of earners that the majority of them have access to a restricted market (think doctor, lawyer, etc.) which most people legally are not allowed to participate in. As you know from Econ 101, an artificially restricted supply artificially increases prices, so that offers a pretty good explanation for how they are able to earn so much more than everyone else.

Here's where things get messy: Access to those markets is often granted through the colleges. That might be where you got the idea that education influences lifetime earnings, but we find the same economic benefits where access to restricted markets is given outside of colleges as well. There is little evidence that college is signifiant there—only the access part. But I can understand your confusion if that is what you had in mind, conflating it because colleges also try to offer education.

If we're both arguing that economic outcomes are messily related to lots of different causes, we're saying the same thing.

We can make this real simple: 64% of the population have a degree. The median income is unchanged since before <50% of the population had a degree. If individuals gained a premium, we'd have to have seen an increase in the median income after >50% of the population attained a degree. That is a mathematical necessity. But it didn't happen... There is no college premium, plain and simple.

While incomes are stagnant for nearly all individuals, college degree or not, I suspect what you are trying to point out is that the so-called top 1% has seen a dramatic rise in income and that most in the top 1% have a degree. Therefore, the combined income of all degree holders has risen at a rate faster than the remainder of the population, even if most degree holders have seen no change. That is definitely true, but a long way from your claim that education influences lifetime earnings. Given that only a small subset of all degree holders have found what could be called a premium, it is unlikely that the premium is influenced by college; at least not in a consistent or reproducible way to make it a useful claim.

We can do a simple thought experiment here. If 0% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does not have a degree? If 100% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does have a degree?

So when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? My definition says yes. And since the degree brings a premium, how do you explain the median income not rising? Maybe the premium you are imagining is just hugs and kisses?

I know, you think the median income has somehow always been filled by a degree holder, even when only a small segment of the population had a degree. But how is that possible when education influences lifetime earnings? Shouldn't those with education be making more than the median when those with education are a small segment of the population?

> We can do a simple thought experiment here.

Yes, and Yes.

> when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree?

No. I don't even agree that there is necessarily a single median income holder - there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without.

Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not.

> there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without.

So what you are suggesting is that attaining a degree lowers your earnings and then gives you back a commensurate premium, thus restoring you back to the same level as those without a degree? That's a take, I guess, but premium usually comes with certain connotations that isn't that.

> Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not.

Again, where is the premium? If the only person without a degree isn't the lowest earner then we know that the person with the least earnings has a degree, but it was asserted that the person with the least earnings is given a premium over those without a degree, so... Are your numbers omitting a space alien or fairy without a degree where we earlier considered them to be people? It's not clear how to resolve this discrepancy.

So what you are saying is that someone who is the lowest paid person can remain the lowest paid person by going to college? We'll take your word for it since that has never been considered interesting enough for anyone else to study — remaining the lowest paid person isn't usually a goal one strives for — but what's the significance of that to have mentioned it earlier?

I'm still curious about what that definition might have been?

Now that you're saying that in reality college graduates don't see a premium over non-college graduates and actually occupy the lowest income class then obviously the simplified model breaks. Thems the breaks when you try to simplify. A simplified model will always be just that: a simplification.

It remains unclear what non-standard definition of median you are thinking of? You said you needed to share it earlier but still haven't...

The rest of it is not an argument worth having because I don't have strong opinions about the lifetime income premium for college attendence (or the human capital vs. signaling arguments behind it). I didn't attend; I went to work right after high school. Be as mean as you want to college!

That's true, but has little to do with our discussion. What is the purpose of this diversion? Realized that your non-standard definition you were concerned about earlier but were afraid to share isn't useful and now want to make it clear to me that you have come to understand what median normally means? It makes no difference to me.

> I don't have strong opinions about the lifetime income premium for college attendence

Was there some reason for us to think you did? Not sure what this is trying to add either.

If you really want to go back to your non-standard median definition, tell us how someone(s) in the bottom 38% can represent the median.

It's offering was: "Talking about my CV/resume and engaging with potential employers have to be so stiff, corpo and outdated. Why can't it be more casual and easy to do like a Facebook Bio but still usable? Also, business cards suck and get lost. Another thing, working in <insert industry> is demanding and going to networking events is awkward and too full on. I wish I could maintain connections and have occasional conversations with people and actually remember who they are"

This worked for a while. In 2012 to 2015 getting jobs entirely via recruiters and conversational interactions on LinkedIn often led to interviews and other things. Then they started needing to make money, so adverts became a thing, the premium became a thing, then marketing departments caught up and started aggressively promoting crap, then later influencers arrived, and now AI. It's a death by 1000 cuts, it's fundamentally made out of low-stakes dishonestly from people just trying to keep their career going. But the end state is that it's probably the most dishonest social media platform to date. When you have Instagram and Facebook to compare it to, that's quite an achievement.

When they added the story /post section it became a glorified Facebook .

Keep adding people, and you would both lower your bar towards an obviously low average, and you increase the pressure to "particpate", which is damaging even to scenes that do have high barriers of entry [1].

MS added the KPI-maxxing corpo cancer that boosted the decay, but I don't believe they were a cause. To quote the AI bros, "it's inevitable."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish_or_perish

If anything, you probably have the causation backwards: Claude talks like a LessWrong poster.

In any case, dogfighting is commonly done because it's great training but in most cases, you expect most Air to Air combat being flinging missiles at each other.