> I'm often impressed by the quality of the UK's open data.

The ordnance survey not being open data is a bad look though.

Indeed. Taillte Ireland's (Ordnance Survey Ireland's) detailed cartographic data is also not open (including historic data - maps from the 1820s and 1920s!) and it's really a huge pain in the ass. On the other hand, OSM is in pretty good shape at least for topographic information. I've used it to make hiking maps here and nobody's died - as far as I know.

As a side note, I was one of the initial developers of the Irish national open data portal. Earlier today I had Claude look for similar LIDAR data for Ireland and I saw it pull from the site I built a dozen years ago and I was unreasonably pleased with myself :)

I’ll add the UKHO Admiralty marine charts to this list too.

I mean, why was OpenStreetMap created?

That is a good question. The existing data center map above is commercial so creating a free version with a clear goal seems to align with why OSM was started. The social aspect of OpenStreetMap was more important than the technical part.

These doors are designed for being chauffeured, not for you to get in at the same time as your driver.

The number of countries where life imprisonment is available possible sentence for counterfeiting seems to confirm it having some of the harshest punishments.

One of the fastest ways to make a state powerless is to make the money they issue and use to pay for everything worthless.

> number of countries where life imprisonment is available

All of those, I believe, have the death penalty for e.g. corporate fraud.

This is a bit of a nut job hypothesis. States don’t collapse because of private counterfeiting. It simply becomes an economic nuisance. The budget given to anti-counterfeiting in any country is generally a rounding error compared with other policing.

> You want real time

Isn’t the point that OpenAI’s use case does not require realtime?

When OpenAI responds, it has most of the audio in advance of when the user needs to hear it. It produces audio faster than real time, so a real time protocol is a bad fit.

That is not the case. See get-realtime-translate[0 that's doing it as a trickle instead (not turn based).

[0] https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/models/gpt-realtime-t...

This article feels overblown.

Here’s a trust that has 250 billion, but reports prices and does many other things the article says isn’t required: https://workplace.vanguard.com/investments/product-details/f...

Not opaque and it has lower fees than the retail S&P 500 funds.

Yes I don’t get the worry on an individual basis. If my money is in a CIT they tell me exactly what it’s invested in and it is audited every year.

The worry here seems to be on a systemic level, rather. No one knows how much in aggregate is in these types of trusts nor how it is in aggregate allocated. Which may be a concern from a systemwide risk management pov but far less so for an individual worker.

Using Vanguard anything as a counter-example isn't terribly persuasive; they're unique in the market.

Given the Bloomberg article explicitly calls out Vanguard, I don’t think using it as a counter-example is inappropriate.

In the context of the article, this type of trust you linked has got to be the special case of all special cases.

Since that trust is tracking the S&P 500, it has to be literally equivalent to its VOO ETF counterpart. If it ever rebalanced in a way that no longer tracked the S&P, or even mysteriously changed disclosure in some way, investors would dump it the next day (for an index fund that is literally the same except for expense ratio and disclosure rules).

Moreover, everything in that trust is quite obviously publicly traded companies. The article is about retirement funds gaining access to private markets[1].

tldr; this ain't that.

1: clarification edit. Also, my gut tells me I should have written that as "private markets gaining access to retirement funds" but I really don't know enough about it.

> Only 79… far from a complete human experience

It seems you’re judging his life solely on the age when he died rather than all the things he did.

I think he’s really just trying to spur your imagination into imagining if someone like that had lived longer.

Anyway, this conversation has been had repeatedly. Many people seem to be unable to imagine that positive benefit of much longer lives.

Suppose that’s why “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

Imagine what a guy like that could do with 79 more years... or 10x of that.

It's not that outlandish: sharks, turtles, etc get far more years than we do.

It's shocking all billionaires aren't devoting all their resources to solving this cosmic crime against humanity.

A complete human experience is to have relatively little time, no point in doing anything if you have 500 years to do it IMO.

Edit: Maybe there wouldn't be nilihism, but I don't think you could get more fulfilled with the extra time. I feel like an insect that lives 24 hours and a shark that lives several hundred have an equal feeling of accomplishment.

You seem to be implying that at after a certain number of years (e.g. 79) you wake up one day and say "I'm fulfilled and have nothing left I'd like to achieve".

As someone who occasionally works with terminal patients, I've never seen that in practice. In reality most people desperately wish that they could carry on living, and have plenty of unfinished business that they'd like to see through. The only exception I've seen is when someone is in so much pain that they just want to end the suffering.

If we turn your argument on its head, a person who dies at 20 is just as fulfilled as a person who dies at 79. So why should anyone bother trying to live a long and healthy life?

500 years is as arbitrary a number as 79 is.

A Craig Venter that lives (a healthy life) to 158 is quite likely to accomplish at least 1 more great thing than one who lives to 79.

More likely that he would live most of those years with compounding mental and physical health issues, quality of life degrading to the point where most would wish for death instead.

This is a common misconception. Namely, that increasing lifespan just means extending the part where your health degrades continuously. That's actually a very unrealistic outcome for life extension technology. In general, the things that cause your health to degrade as you age are interlinked with the things that cause you to die. If you find a way to increase lifespan, chances are you've also found a way to increase healthspan. In fact, all of the best methods we currently have to live longer do exactly that (e.g. exercise, eat healthily, avoid smoking, etc.).

What an un-hacker ethos: the idea is to continuously fix problems so that, if anything, quality of life improves from year to year.

"un-hacker ethos". I'll put that on the shelf next to "it's only an engineering problem" and "assume a spherical cow".

I recognize and appreciate that you likely believe your contribution is one of optimism, but respectfully, I feel ill reading things like this.

Ever heard of Chesterton's fence? I don't believe we are more clever than our mother, the computational machinery of the universe. If we remove death, there will be great consequence.

Heck, it's arguable that the slow decline and death spiral we're in on this planet (empathatically NOT just human well-being metrics here), that this is already due to pushing death back, and systematically allowing power/opportunity to accumulate ever more deeply at scale of the selfish individual...

Why didn't anybody warn Alexander Fleming about Chesterton's fence?

I know it's cliche, but if he knew he (any of us) knew we might live to 790, would we live life so fully?

I kind of think that's what is behind some people versus others—those that have an intrinsic, constant sense of the brevity of life are the ones that try to experience life to the fullest.

Yes. A lot of people would live life so fully if they knew they had 790 years: in fact more so.

Right now the most ambitious projects people start barely scratch a decade or two.

They might be less willing to get on a sail boat where they could be swept off and nearly drown.

Thiel might be, but Thiel is also someone who gets infinitely mocked

With that having been said a lot of the health industry is fraud

I routinely have to correct product managers repeatedly on key details of how their products work and how their customers operate so this doesn’t surprise me at all. It is totally a mistake I could see a product management director having been corrected on a dozen times but they keep making it.

I have to ask you for coaching advice here, as I may or may not be experiencing similar things. Does the correction impact your political capital? I am a firm believer in critique in private, but in key meetings where capabilities are the inputs to other discussion, it is difficult to bite my tongue

GE Capital was not just vendor financing and its serious problems were not due to vendor financing. I don’t think it is a great example in any way.