I'm genuinely fine sharing my medical history, but I don't know if my lack of shame about e.g. testicular torsion, or the way that I lost my notes for a bit and unnecessarily got repeats of vaccines I'd already had, are a sign of being in possession of a boring medical history, or an indication of an uncommonly diminished shame response.
Whatever it is, I am aware that my lack of concern here is something which makes me different from normal people. I don't really get why people in general are ashamed of their medical histories, but I nevertheless absolutely do support everyone's right to keep such secrets, because there's a few specific cases where the medical history reveals something socially damaging either in the present or with a risk of it becoming so in the future, the obvious example of which is an abortion given the US seems to be facing a loss of freedom in this regard.
(Perhaps most people have something socially damaging in their medical histories, and I've just not noticed because nobody says the thing?)
The "I have nothing to hide" argument doesn't work for security, and it doesn't work for health care records either.
You might not have anything to hide now, but you might in the future. Someone you are closest to gets murdered or into a horrific violent accident right in front of you. Despite your best efforts this gives you crippling PTSD and you are committed involuntarily for a 72 hour hold. Now your future employer (legally or not) runs a quick records check and sees you have mental health concerns and really doesn't care about the context. Why roll the dice? Go with the candidate who was in a close 2nd and already a coin flip who doesn't have such a thing in their history.
Plenty of other scenarios that can happen to anyone even if they live the most perfect boring life imaginable and never do anything interesting ever. Plenty more for folks who step off the reservation of "acceptable social/corporate behavior" even a little bit.
Plus, if you want to protect folks like in your example of having an abortion on their record - you need to vehemently defend their right as a boring person yourself as that's the only way such individuals will ever be protected. It's like herd immunity but for privacy.
It's not about the people who have nothing to hide. It's about the people who do.
I don't know about 'a few specific cases'. STIs, mental health issues, pregnancies (interrupted or not, voluntarily or not), contraception methods and/or lapses, anything often misunderstood like MS or neurodegenerative diseases, huntington, substance use/abuse (voluntary or not), victim of assault (sexual or not), sterility/fertility/impotency/incontinence, any manageable medical issue someone might use to not give you a job, to rent you an apartment, although you do actually manage it well...
None of those I'd want shared anywhere, to anyone, against my will. Those (overall) are not rare.
This is not honestly engaging with GP's statement.
The benefit only accrues if the sharing is universal.
I am too private a person to agree with GP, but it does seem that most health issues that are visible to the passerby or casual acquaintence are less stigmatized than the ones that can be hidden. There might be something to the idea.
Of course you'd have to agree that de-stigmatizing is more socially important than privacy. I guess I'm privileged enough to have no stigmas, secret or otherwise, that I consider more important than my privacy. But I know others are less fortunate.
GP did not specify that their thought was scoped to the same people as GGP's (explicitly dystopian) scenario, so I read their comment as working on the kernel of the idea and not the horrifying class-based discriminatory version.
While I am still confident of that assessment, I'll grant you that "obvious" charitable interpretation is not as reliable as it should be. :-/
The conversation around GPU lifecycles seems to be conflating the various shear rates within the data center. My layman understanding is that the old 3 year replacement cycle had more to do with some component, not necessarily the memory or the processor, going wrong for half of their units by 3 years, at which point GPUs were cheap enough and advancing faster enough that it was more cost effective to upgrade than to fix. However, that calculus changes completely when the GPU and the HBM are orders of magnitude more expensive than the rest of the system. I suspect that we will see repairs being done on on the various brittle bits of the system and the actual core expensive components will continue to operate much longer than 3 years.
To be clear, that is the advertised effects, not the side effects. The idea is that if you over eat you feel terrible, but also you won't want to overeat since you'll be full.
The only reason I want these things to be any smarter is because I need them to do more work over longer periods screwing up. The only reason I need them to do more work over long periods is because they are too slow to properly pair with.
If I could have it read more of my project in a single gulp and produce the 10-1000 lines of code I want in a few seconds, I wouldn't need it to go off and write the thousands of lines on its own in the background. But because even trivial changes can take minutes by the time it slurps up the right context and futzes with the linter and types, that ideal pair programmer loop is less attractive.
I don't think it will come all at once. By far the part no one wants to do and is also easiest for AI to tackle is long hauling. Humans will still be required for the last mile and delivery. I can envision a world in which we have "more" drivers because of AI not fewer.
I don't really see how the first part of your post leads to the last part.
Right now, we have drivers for all of the miles the trucks go.
Even if we posit that there may be more trucks on the road with self-driving long-haul routes, it's hard to imagine that it's enough more to make up for all the long-haul truckers who will no longer be needed. And at least for most purposes, it seems highly likely that the number of last-mile deliveries is primarily driven by demand, not the availability of long-haul truck routes.
Even if they could increase slightly, there are limits to how many trucks the highways can fit without congesting pretty badly. (Anecdotally, the NYS Thruway is already approaching that limit at some times and in some areas.)
So how would we end up with more drivers total than now?
Is it a political statement if it's also a statement of fact? Sure, the comment has some color to it, I'll concede that, but one can no longer post these kinds of things on Twitter and get the honest engagement from community members one used to. It's no longer a welcoming place for this kind of discussion.
With no account, I can no longer read comment chains on Twitter. It will only show the direct comment linked to. If you go to the user's page, all you see are the promoted tweets. There's no way to access the timeline sequentially anymore.
With those restrictions, you're writing only to a captive audience if you post on Twitter.
So you are technically correct, you literally cannot post these things on Twitter.
You want Medicaid? Tell everyone about your hemorrhoids first.