Xin chào, tôi muốn biết giá của bạn.

Stop whining about the job market, just move to where the jobs are! For instance, lots of business are in desperate need of factory workers for the defense industry.

Get answer on your question by new non-criminal Blockchain Search Engine! Free for use. We make money on advertising, making Blockchain entry - private (10$) and paid API. Base ~200 mln valid domains.

Enter your request in latin and choose base - you will receive file with the occurrence of a substring in the domain

Link (own hosting): http://78.29.53.57/searchdomain/

<a href="http://78.29.53.57/searchdomain/">http://78.29.53.57/searchdomain/</a>

Getting it appropriate oneself to someone his, like a big-hearted would should So, how does Tencent’s AI benchmark work? Maiden, an AI is the facts in deed data a sharp-witted great deal up to account from a catalogue of as leftovers 1,800 challenges, from construction validation visualisations and интернет apps to making interactive mini-games.

Post-haste the AI generates the pandect, ArtifactsBench gets to work. It automatically builds and runs the lex non scripta 'base law in a anchored and sandboxed environment.

To greater than and beyond all things how the industriousness behaves, it captures a series of screenshots upwards time. This allows it to corroboration respecting things like animations, get known changes after a button click, and other dependable consumer feedback.

For the treatment of good, it hands atop of all this squeal – the firsthand importune, the AI’s encrypt, and the screenshots – to a Multimodal LLM (MLLM), to law as a judge.

This MLLM umpy isn’t no more than giving a losers философема and as an substitute uses a definition, per-task checklist to pigeon the d‚nouement be revealed across ten unalike metrics. Scoring includes functionality, possessor duel, and the in any chest aesthetic quality. This ensures the scoring is fair, compatible, and thorough.

The full of without a doubt is, does this automated reviewer in actuality profit ancestry taste? The results proffer it does.

When the rankings from ArtifactsBench were compared to WebDev Arena, the gold-standard agenda where existent humans guarantee for on the finest AI creations, they matched up with a 94.4% consistency. This is a elephantine vigorous from older automated benchmarks, which solely managed inhumanly 69.4% consistency.

On extraordinarily of this, the framework’s judgments showed across 90% unanimity with maven kindly developers. <a href=https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/>https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/</a>

Hi, I wanted to know your price.

I really, seriously, can't figure out what the point of this spam is! Do you know? It's a short message in a seemingly randomly selected language which always translates into Hi, I wanted to know your price.

It's not advertising anything, it's not spreading propaganda and there's no follow up for any kind of extractive scam, not for information nor money.

These are a few samples of the messages being posted:

Прывітанне, я хацеў даведацца Ваш прайс.
Hi, მინდოდა ვიცოდე თქვენი ფასი.
Hi, roeddwn i eisiau gwybod eich pris.
Salam, qiymətinizi bilmək istədim.
Hej, jeg ønskede at kende din pris.
Γεια σου, ήθελα να μάθω την τιμή σας.
Hi, ego volo scire vestri pretium.
Szia, meg akartam tudni az árát.
Hola, quería saber tu precio..
Ola, quería saber o seu prezo.
Hi, kam dashur të di çmimin tuaj
Salut, ech wollt Äre Präis wëssen.
Dia duit, theastaigh uaim do phraghas a fháil.
Здравейте, исках да знам цената ви.
Ողջույն, ես ուզում էի իմանալ ձեր գինը.
Aloha, makemake wau eʻike i kāu kumukūʻai.
Hæ, ég vildi vita verð þitt.
Kaixo, zure prezioa jakin nahi nuen.
Ndewo, achọrọ m ịmara ọnụahịa gị.

I've seen the following IP ranges. And big surprise they're from the Russian Federation.

185.39.19.0/24 AS216341 OPTIMA-AS OPTIMA LLC (registered 2025-03-11)  
45.89.70.0/24 AS50340 SELECTEL-MSK JSC Selectel (registered 2017-10-16)

It seems like it could be the first, automated, step of a phishing scam -- and a successful post would trigger manual action. But, I'm gonna assume the operation fell apart at some point! Someone simply forgot, or was unable, to turn the bot off. Based on a few Google searches it seems this has been going on for many years!

Why there shouldn't be billionaires

Actually, a billion dollars isn't the point. The problem is when some people have such an enormous amount of wealth that it vastly exceeds what "regular people" have. In North America the median person has a net worth of just north of 100 000 dollars (UBS Global Wealth Databook 2023). A single person with just north of a billion dollars has as much as ten thousand people. If they gave away 99% they would still have over ten million dollars.

That's still way too much for a single person to ever have but let's use that number since a billion is completely incomprehensible. In the USA, less than one percent, about one third of a percent of adults have 10 million or more.

To be clear, I certainly think some people should make, and therefor have, more money than others because they provide a greater value, like a doctor for instance. But there's a point where the difference is simply too large. As they say, the dose makes the poison. Here I'll give the four major arguments for why such a large difference shouldn't exist.

Economically unfair

To me the single most obvious problem with some people having a lot of money is that they can live luxuriously for the rest of their life without needing to contribute to society ever again even without ever spending their money. Society is built on the premise that we all chip in and provide value, and in exchange we get access to all the value provided by everyone else. We trade this value with each other using money as a medium of exchange.

But if you have ten million dollars, you can simply put it in a global index fund and you're set for life. This doesn't require any special skill or knowledge whatsoever. You are pretty much guaranteed to earn at least 5% above inflation per year on average even with somewhat safe investments. That's half a million dollars. Yes that's correct, when you have this much money, you can have a yearly passive income of 500 000 without ever getting out of bed.

And anyone can do it. It doesn't take any financial skill, it's not some secret strategy known only to a few. You don't have to take any big risks, or figure out a convoluted scheme. Just put the money in the market with diversity and low fees. That's it. But you can of course easily afford good financial advice with a minuscule fraction of your wealth. They'll tell you the same thing though. You can't beat the market, but you can make as much money as the market does.

Democracy

A lot of people, when they go to school, learn that they live in a democracy and that that's good, because in a dictatorship you can't live your life freely. They'll also learn that what makes a nation a democracy is having free elections every four years or so.

In a lot of ways this common message often misses the point. First of all, it's not as simple as being a democracy or not -- it's a spectrum -- one democracy can be more democratic than an other. And secondly, it's not about voting -- it's about power. Specifically, it's about the power being distributed as widely as possible among the citizens.

Buy politicians

Well, money is power. Ever wonder why politicians don't do what "the people" seem to want? While people can call their representatives, their concerns will only end up as a statistic. Generally speaking, people can technically talk to them in person by taking a day off work and physically visiting them, but that costs money.

If you're wealthy you can pay to have someone do this every day, which is called lobbying. And if you can afford lobbying you can afford donations which will make the representative much more attentive. Unfortunately, a lot of people will vote for politicians simply based on what they say. However, politicians know that wealthy people will stop donating if they don't often actually do what they want.

Buy the media

Ever wonder why a lot of people have opinions that are actually against their self-interest? If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it and if you have enough money you can pay to have exactly whatever you want people to hear be told again and again. This is why businesses pay for advertising -- it works. But it's even more effective to buy a news outlet or similar organization, because now the very content itself can be your marketing.

If you only have ten million dollars you might not wield a lot of influence over the media and politics in the national debate, but it's certainly enough for local influence. At the same time, the multimillionaires have a lot in common which means that they can collectively buy a very large amount of influence on the things they agree on. While regular people, even when they band together, don't have a lot of disposable income for such actions.

Bribery and worse

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you can't do it. It only means that the government might impose consequences. Many crimes, especially those done through a corporation, only have a financial consequence. Since the size of these consequences rarely scales with the wealth of the perpetrators then if you have enough money you can in fact afford to break the law all the time.

Additionally, money buys you lawyers who can advice you on strategies on how to not get caught, or how to insulate yourself from the consequences. Thanks to money, you can also enact these schemes with the help of many other people. If you get caught anyway, you can afford a legal team which will minimize the consequences, maybe even eliminate them.

Bribery is one of the most simple ways of getting what you want when you're rich and it might be the purest example of how money is power, but it does come in an amazing number of varieties only limited by the imagination. You can pay inconvenient people to go away, or for politicians to do what you want. It doesn't have to be a direct paycheck, it can be a job offer "after retirement from politics", a favor or even an invitation to "elite" social circles.

Enough money also lets you straight up have people murdered by accidents. This is of course much less common than many conspiracy theorists would try to convince you, but it would also be grossly naive to believe it never happens. Given the tendency for power to corrupt, one should not underestimate what people are willing to do to maintain power once they have it.

Luck and exploitation

Wealthy and successful people believe they are so because they deserve it, even when it's 100% due to random chance. They believe they worked hard or made smart decisions, and maybe they did. The problem is that so did a vast number of other people, but they did not become obscenely rich.

Working hard and smart does usually lead to a reasonably comfortable life, although you will have to keep working for most of it. When we're talking about gaining at least 10 million dollars, then working hard or smart might even be detrimental.

Working smart

A smart person isn't going to win the lottery -- smart people don't play the lottery since they did the math and they know it's a bad risk. And even when it comes to a highly risky but good investment, like a 2% chance to win 100 times your money, a smart person will never put all their eggs in one basket, because there's 98% chance of being left with nothing.

If the median person has 100 000 dollars, then according to the Kelly criterion a smart person would invest only one percent or about a thousand bucks into such an investment. If you could find a hundred such opportunities you would end up with approximately double your money. Good investment, but you're not rich.

Becoming a multimillionaire requires you to put all your savings, all one hundred thousand dollars of it, into this one thing, and 98 out of a 100 people will lose everything. It's a ludicrous idea, but two of those hundred people will end up set for life! However, you will hardly ever hear about all the unlucky ones, despite all hundred people making the exact same stupid decision.

Investing, starting a business, playing the lottery, or any other scheme. It's governed by the same principle. Smart people will almost never win big, but they'll always win something because they'll only take good bets and will always diversify. Stupid people will almost always bankrupt themselves, both from bad bets and from good bets without enough diversification. But yes, a few will get lucky, sometimes extremely lucky.

Working hard

The harder you work, the more you gain, but how much? If you work two jobs you could make twice as much money, but could you work three jobs? There's simply not enough time in a day. If you're better at your job than your peers you could get paid more, but how good can you really be?

An amateur sprinter runs 100 meters in 15 - 18 seconds while the best sprinter in the entire world isn't even twice as fast. This is a well known phenomenon called diminishing returns, and it means that while something might continue to get better, it will get less better every time. At some point the improvement will be close to zero.

In order to produce a hundred times as much value (to become a multimillionaire) you'll need leverage, something to not just augment but multiply your abilities. You need machines. If we're talking about running, a machine can easily move ten times as fast. For lifting, or applying any force, they're thousands of times stronger. Machines can also remember vast amounts of information perfectly and complete millions of calculations in a fraction of a second.

The best thing about machines is that you can have lots of them. In a factory you can have multiple machines working at the same time -- if you need to be more productive, just get more machines, there's no diminishing marginal productivity. But machines are expensive, you need to have enough money to buy them in the first place.

Of course, machines might not work completely autonomously. Well, humans are essentially machines, except you rent them. You can pay humans to produce value for you, and you will always pay them less than the value that they produce -- otherwise you wouldn't profit.

So why don't the humans just work for themselves and take that profit? Because once you have machines then humans are not productive enough on their own, and if the humans don't already have enough money to buy the machines then they have no choice but to work for someone who does.

As the machines become larger and more powerful (and a business organization is also a kind of machine) non-wealthy humans lose bargaining power, as they become almost worthless without the leverage of the machinery. And whoever owns the machines will naturally exploit this fact to become obscenely rich.

The value of money

Having twice as much money must be twice as good, right? However, it's not that simple. When you have no money at all, finding a dollar on the street makes you happy. But once you have a lot, is it even worth picking up?

On average people who make more money are happier, even at high levels of income. It is, however, only a correlation. We don't know how much "already having a good life" causes higher income, if they're happy because of the status and respect their work brings, or because we've come to define "success in life" as literally "making a lot of money".

In either case, diminishing returns strikes again -- when you're making a lot of money, an increase in income seems to correlate with a smaller and smaller increase in happiness which is why researchers plot the income on the x-axis using a logarithmic scale. It's also worth considering that happiness is to a significant degree relative, especially once you've secured the necessities of life. Comparing yourself to people who are wealthier has a strong negative effect on happiness. That is, the money doesn't matter -- only where you're ranked in society matters.

What this all means is that if you took half the wealth of a person with ten million dollars, they would only be slightly less happy -- because they would still be rich. If you then gave 100 000 each to 50 poor people their individual happiness would increase by a lot, and it would happen 50 times.

Also, if you took half the wealth of all rich people their happiness would suffer even less because they would still have the same rank. Even without redistributing the money, regular people (and even the medium rich) would become happier because they would now be closer in wealth to the richest.

Finally, plenty of research has shown that economic inequality is linked to social instability, democratic breakdown, and macroeconomic instability and it hinders economic growth. Meaning that the existence of extremely rich people is simply a generally bad thing for the whole of society.

In conclusion

It's unfair that rich people can live luxurious lives by simply investing their wealth and never contributing to society. Money is power and if some people have a lot more than others, then it's no longer a democracy. Extreme wealth can only be acquired through luck and exploitation. And hording societies resources gives very little real value to the wealthy few, while those resources could make many regular peoples lives significantly better.

I'm installing pytorch to do some machine learning, and once again, I'm staggered by the enormous size of these packages. The wheel is over 800 megabytes, WHY?! And that's the compressed size!! I certainly understand that the models are large, and the data to train them even greater. But the software framework!? There can't possibly be that much actual code, it has to be something else, but what? and is it really needed?

And then there's nvidia cuda, which is an ever larger humongous beast weighing in at around three gigabytes for all the compressed wheels. How can this possibly make sense? It might include a lot of stuff optimized for all the different GPUs but come on! I really don't see why it needs to take up so much space. What's in it that is actually needed?

Have they just grown because both machine learning and game development (media files) deal with large amounts of data anyway so no one cares enough? Or is there an actual justification for the majority of the sizes?

Should there be a legal minimum age for social media?

Why? Why not? What should the limit be and how should it be enforced?

You know how "the average person is really dumb, and half are worse"? Well, it's not that people in general are especially stupid, nor that some are exceptionally smart. The key is that most people don't actually think much most of the time, while some do.

Overall, the level of "raw" intelligence that people have doesn't really differ by a whole lot. But the difference between two regular people, one who thought something through and one who didn't, is in fact very significant. That's why people say "think before you act", because simply taking the time and thinking it through is usually enough - while not doing so could lead to disaster.

Now consider a person who often takes the time to think about things - every day their understanding of the world increases. If they also read and seek knowledge from others, even better. But a person who rarely does this will barely grow at all.

Over time it adds up, and then whenever something complicated comes along the regular thinker doesn't need to start thinking from scratch, they've already got a head start because they've thought about some of the relevant things before.

When you're able to quickly figure things out, because of previous thinking, then you'll enjoy it more - just like being good at anything else - and surprise, surprise, you'll find yourself thinking about things more often. A self-reinforcing behavior leading to a vast gulf between people who act intelligently and those who don't.

Should I watch Murderbot?

Feminist financial genius investor

In the show Sticks (which I thought overall was pretty good) one of the characters, Elena, unexpectedly gains 100 000 dollars. Her plan is to invest this entire sum in helium, and the show makes it clear that men are discriminating against her because she's a woman, when they don't agree with her.

At the bank

In episode 2 she goes to a bank, and the man there suggests some "automatic investment plans" supposedly yielding 5-8%, which we can assume is a diverse combination of stocks and bonds. This is actually good advice to someone you don't know, and such a plan is a good investment, although he should've asked if she wants to use the money in the near future, or plans to leave it alone for longer.

She says she wants to be more aggressive (perfectly fine) but the man says that financial markets are very complicated (which is both true and false, there are many types of investments). I think his comment is a little weird, but they just started talking and it's very common for people to want to invest in things they don't understand because they believe they'll make completely unrealistic returns.

Now she reveals that she wants to invest in helium. However, instead of simply saying "I want to invest in helium because I think there's a shortage" like a normal person, she first speaks very indirectly about finding a "hole in the market" and then mentions helium as if it's a secret that she doesn't want anyone to overhear, and the whole time she's making so many weird facial expressions and hand-movements that it makes her sound absolutely bat-shit insane. Additionally, she explicitly says that she has insider information, which the man points out would make the trading illegal (which is true).

The man advises her to not take a big risk like that, and she says "I don't have a penis.", because apparently that's why he's "talking to [her] in that tone". Only now does she mention that the offer has hidden fees and is below market returns, and then continues with a bit which explicitly references Pretty Woman and leaves as if she's superior, while the man is simply bewildered by the whole exchange (and rightly so).

The bank man simply recommended the banks medium risk option, which is in fact good advise. There can certainly be better options on the market, but it's literally his job to first recommend the banks own solution. He would've said the exact same thing to a man. If you already know what you want to invest in you can simply say "Great, but I want to invest in X.". If that investment seems risky (which her investment really is), then again it is in fact good that the bank man questions it, and he would've done the same thing with a male customer. Note that he never refused her, he just recommended against it. She could've just said "I understand the risks but this is what I want." and he would've absolutely done it, rather than losing her (he does work on commission after all). But she walks away claiming discrimination simply because he didn't instantly agree with her.

At the campsite

Now it's episode 6 and Elena has conversations with Mitts, a man. She says that she's going all in on helium. He strongly questions going all in on one thing. They're conversation is cut short but is later resumed by her and he again makes the point that it is risky to go all in on one idea. She claims to understand about diversification (except she wants to do the literally most opposite thing), and he again says it's risky, and that if it was him he'd go with mutual funds or bonds, "something smart". She interjects "How do you know helium isn't smart?", and he clarifies that he doesn't think that she isn't smart, but their conversation is cut short again.

Now Elena is apparently angry with Mitts because she's been questioned by assholes like him her entire life. She says she went to business school and was top of her class, but didn't finish because her boyfriend told her to drop out when she got pregnant, and then later her father told her she couldn't go back to finish because she had to be a "good mother". These points, while important and valid for her life, have nothing to do with Mitts and do not give her justification for being angry with him for pointing out that putting everything in helium is risky. But she storms off before he can say anything.

He catcher up with her and then she rambles about what a good idea helium is. She noticed the price skyrocketed because she's been working in a store that sells balloons, but it's also used in a lot of other sectors for serious reasons. And apparently there might be a "regime change in Tanzania" which will severely limit helium production. This, she claims, means it will give greater returns than other more traditional investments.

The conversation is cut short. But then later he says he's not against the idea, just that he doesn't want her to make a mistake. She says it's not a mistake but a calculated risk. There's some romantic development happening and we cut again. Later, he says "I think your helium idea is amazing", it's not clear if he thought that before and was just cautious, or if he warmed up to the idea.

This is fucking crazy. Apparently he's being sexists simply because he doesn't immediately agree with everything she says. And all he's saying is that putting everything in helium is risky. But since she's a woman, and he's a man, that means he thinks she's an idiot for wanting to invest in helium. And to make it worse, the show makes her "win" the argument in the end.

Don't go all in on helium

First of all, I don't care how smart you think you are, what education you supposedly have or what gender you identify with. Putting all your money in one thing is, in fact, supremely stupid regardless of what the idea is. There's absolutely no reason to listen to an investment idea from a person who is so financially illiterate that despite "having gone to business school" and supposedly "knowing what diversification is", they genuinely believe that putting all your eggs in one basket is the way to go. Even if helium was a good, even great, investment the men in this story disagree with Elena because of factual basic economic reasons. That's it.

When it comes to helium though, I'm not gonna say that the investment is bad, but I don't see why it would be good either. First of all, she doesn't actually have insider information - the price of helium is public, and so is potential regime changes that would affect production. Simply because the price has been going up does not mean that it will do so in the future, that's a very poor basis for investing. Diminishing future supply is a good reason to bet the price will go up, but the price has already gone up, probably because all other investors also know about the supply/demand considerations. This is a classic mistake for amateur investors, not realizing that the market has already taken this information about the future into account - it's already "priced in" as we say.

Don't pull the sexism card

It must be nice to be a woman. It seems very convenient to be able to call sexism on any man who disagrees with you. You don't have to prove your point with tedious things like reasonable arguments. Hey, why even listen to what the man has to say!? If he doesn't immediately agree with every single thing you say, then obviously it's because he doesn't respect women - simple as that. It's quite a privilege, isn't it? That's the kind of feminism we have these days.

It seems some men don't ever date? I mean they seem like perfectly regular dudes, do they even try?

I've been thinking about how society chooses what the rules are, and I'm not very happy about it.

It seems laws and regulation often happen in two ways:

1. Because of some specific event that people suddenly care about. Similar to how people care a lot about plane crashes but not at all about all the poeple dying in traffic accidents.
2. Some specific group cares a lot about an issue, and while everyone else is against it, most don't care enough to know, or do, anything about it.

The first case leads to rules that are exaggerated and poorly designed since they're based on short-term reactions to some specific situation, while the law being created will apply to lots of different situations over a long period of time. The second case over time accumulates into "death by a thousand papercuts" as life gets continuously worse for "regular people", but only slowly.

There's a third case, where the majority agrees (for a long time) that something needs to be regulated and it eventually happens. And what I find interesting about this case is that it seems very rare for people to consider what the cost of the relevant regulation actually is - probably because no one has to directly pay it. When you go to a store and see a thing you like, you might very well change your mind when you see the price.

But when it comes to laws, people have no idea how much it's going to cost businesses to follow the law (which will lead to higher prices or lower quality), what it's going to cost society to administer and enforce the law (which will lead to higher taxes or worse services), or in which ways it's going to burden them in their regular life if they end up getting entangled in the bureaucratic mess (like stricter rules to reduce welfare-fraud will also cause people who deserve it to "accidentally" be denied). Even if it's calculated that the cost will be x million dollars to society, people can't understand something that abstract.

In general it seems the laws and rules of a democracy aren't being carefully designed in order to achieve the best outcome. Instead it's more like a drunk person stumbling haphazardly in some general direction. Over a long period of time, the people will get some notable portion of the rules that they want, but it will always be a long and inefficient process where a significant portion of the current rules will always be detrimental.

Why are poor people told to avoid debt when the rich borrow money all the time?

Minimalist Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) Without Tool Overhead

I keep bouncing between fancy PKM apps and end up organizing the system more than thinking. Anyone running a truly minimalist setup that still surfaces old ideas?

Rewilding a Concrete City Canal

Our mid‑century flood canal is a sterile trapezoid. Proposal: soften one bank, add gravel riffles, floating vegetated mats. Critics fear reduced conveyance during peak storms. Has anyone balanced flood control + habitat in a similar retrofit?

Low‑Tech Communication After Infrastructure Collapse

Assuming multi‑day power + cellular outage (wildfire scenario), what practical stack bridges neighbors? Thinking: passive info boards, LoRa mesh, analog radio. What have you actually tested?

AI Models for Endangered Language Revitalization

We’re building a small speech corpus (<40 hours) for a severely endangered language. We want to leverage open‑source ASR + LLMs for community learning tools without leaking sacred narratives. Strategies for balancing openness and cultural data sovereignty?

Micro‑Forests on Urban Rooftops: Feasible Climate Hack or Greenwashing?

I’m researching “Miyawaki” micro‑forests adapted for flat commercial rooftops. Claims: faster biodiversity gains, improved stormwater retention, urban heat reduction. Skeptics point to structural load limits, irrigation complexity, and maintenance cost. Has anyone implemented (or abandoned) one? What surprised you most?