Unlurker|Replay|About
I Built a Wine Atlas
•
It looks really impressive indeed! I'm going to take some time to explore it properly! Good work! Regarding suggestions: You can add some Vivino integration (Not sure how exactly) or maybe add an affiliate program to make some money with it at the end of the explore feature, pull some real wines from the recommendation, and send me to a website that sells them. Again, great work!
•
Impressive, nice work!
OpenAI Medicare Data Breach (smh.com.au)
•
Beyond the breach, I think OAI deserves to answer: what and why did it access the information? Real people and their data are involved. It looks like the PM gave Sam Altman a "tsk tsk". It will be interesting to see whether someone else tries to impose more consequences.
•
Are there technical details anywhere?
•
https://archive.ph/jaL2u
Why Omarchy Exists (mikael.pika.page)
•
Lex Fridman is still shilling for AI? I remember his interview with Hassabis where he depicted Hassabis as the good guy and both were very, very concerned. Very concerned indeed. The DHH episode is literally sponsored by Shopify: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep501-sa On the bright side, this is the best and most honest sponsor disclosure I have ever seen!
•
Tried it on my 2010 iMac. Works like a charm, interesting setup and ui choices. Not sure I’ll stick with it but I’m impressed.
•
After using omarchy for almost a year, and every time I mentioned it people dogpiling about how it's just a bunch of config files not an OS - I tested that idea. Turns out they're pretty much right. Fedora + hyprland + a little messing around with config files to get the shortcuts I'd become familiar with back = about 95% of omarchy. Glad to be rid of any link to DHH, and happy to have a deeper understanding of what comprises my desktop environment. 10/10 would recommend.
•
If Omarchy turns into something good, I'll wait for the de-Hitlerized fork.
•
this is kinda true but a lot of distros are like this. If I installed debian and hyprland i'd basically be able to set up the same config as i have on arch now. Linux distros are basically just pick which package manager you like + whatever config you think is closest to what you want
•
Omarchy exists because there's a real demand for a power user OS that's not controlled by Apple and Microsoft. Windows sucks and MacOS now occupies an extra 18GB or something crazy for their internal models that's not an opt-out.
•
Why omarchy exists; so a dumb racist script kiddie can pretend to be a big boy.
•
Omarchy just looks cool, maybe that's why it got funding.
•
Omarchy is interesting, not for tokenmaxxing, but that's it's just easier to work between whatever steps you are working through as a pipeline, whcih can include ai steps, or not one per window. I realize that's the window manager, but being up and running on a ready to go setup in 10 minutes is something neat too that I hope can become an option for other distors.
•
Omarchy's definitely been polarizing. I've been using it since the first release and its been my daily driver for the last few months. Folks can say what they want about DHH and argue that Omarchy is just dot files... but hot damn if it doesn't give me the breath of fresh air I needed from the Apple ecosystem. I've always loved Linux, but could never stick around. I didn't have the patience for the constant tweaking or trying to figure out how to properly scale display resolution. Omarchy offers some great convention out of the box and is being worked on by a passionate group of people. That's part of what has made the internet great. We're in a new era, why not have a little fun with it?
•
Having fun alone in your homelab is one thing. But encouraging others to use the thing you made, despite the systematic lack of attention to security, is quite another. I don't want YouTube video titles to have arbitrary code execution on my machine and I'm not sure why anyone would. Though if it really is an OS dedicated to AI, as the article says, maybe the vibe coded security holes are what give it a reason to exist at all.
•
idk who DHH is and I don't know (or care) what their opinions are Omarchy is a free OS, and it looks very interesting I don't think it's wrong to avoid it because of DHH's opinions, but I don't think it's right to either
•
If by "people can say what they want" means some people are ok to dismiss casual racism because it doesn't affect them and they can enjoy the fruits, so be it. I tried it out and it has some interesting perks, but will ultimately suffer from a smaller community. We know how much rails suffered before it had to grow up and scale, instead of "just buy more servers". This doesn't mean it's wrong, or right, only that it's not universal. My guess is omarchy outright, or some of it's experience will transfer to other distros. And I finally got an intro to ArchLinux where I got to spend more time using instead of tinkering. I value building more than tinkering or sys admining even if I know how to do it.
•
It's ok to downvote this, doesn't mean it has to be comfortable to have some chats, it's where we all can learn by starting with ourselves. Edit: Not fishing for upvotes. It's ok to realize something you liked using might come from something that's not good and working through that. Other people who are willing to overlook it: https://omarchy.org/patrons/
•
People are having fun with linux. The stain on Omarchy is purely DHH. His politics cannot be ignored.
•
If your issue with Omarchy is politics, then it's probably not just DHH. But I'm going to guess that means you haven't actually looked into it deeply.
•
It exists because DHH needs his safe space where he can post racist rants without getting banned
•
While building on top of open source that was contributed to by enough people who didn't look like him.
•
[delayed]
Just dumb. DHH is way past fuck you money, he does what he wants, you can hate / like it as much as you want, but claiming some grand conspiracy to get people to use more AI??? Just dumb.
•
If DHH believes so much in his distro, why doesn't he put a few million of his own in it, like Shuttleworth did with Ubuntu? Why does he need a GoFundMe for his hobby?
DoorDash Spent $1.4M Trying to Stop Mamdani from Becoming Mayor. Now We Know Why (theintercept.com)
> Founders: Tony Xu, Stanley Tang, Andy Fang, and Evan Moore (Stanford students at the time) Guess never got a chance to learn empathy.
•
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/760317/how-to-rule-the-world-by-theo-baker/ is eye opening. When many of us were in college, there was still some idealism about using technology to make the world a better place. Maybe that still exists at some universities, but Sand Hill Road wiped that out of Stanford.
Too bad having their names associated with this immoral politicking won’t cause them problems. An employee stealing a few hundred bucks would get a felony and probably never work a good job again. Founders stealing hundreds of millions from workers get to say whoopsie.
•
Not even a whoopsie. Look how many responders here defend this exploitative behavior that is only enabled through monopolization as "the market regulates this", or "nobody forces them to buy/work there". Pure libertarian brain rot, no better than the communists they always cry about.
> taking this all the way. How did you arrive to this conclusion?
•
I think they just explained how corrupt the prior mayor was, this coupled with the disclosure by Mamdani about every prior mayor hiding air safety data after 9/11 paint a damning picture of the priorities of prior NYC mayors in recent memory.
If they were honest about it and said something like "we believe our actions were fair and legal and disagree with this decision" it would at least be ideologically consistent. > In a public statement about the settlement, DoorDash said, “Simply put, we screwed up. Our mistakes meant some Dashers were underpaid or paid late. While these mistakes weren’t intentional, that doesn’t make them okay.” (DoorDash did not respond to a request for comment on its campaign contributions.) This is villain shit.
•
"Simply put, we screwed up. We should have given Cuomo two million so we can keep underpaying Dashers."
services like door-dash are literally built on a concept of a sucker pays more. you order a meal that costs $10. total charge comes to $25. then delivery worker made $5 on that order. + the delivery worker expects a tip. which means the company sees both the delivery worker and the person who ordered as suckers. no wonder ride-share companies jumped onto food-delivery.
•
> services like door-dash are literally built on a concept of a sucker pays more Strongly disagree with your entire narrative, one that it demonstrably disconnected from reality. Nobody is forcing anyone --at all-- to use these services. Not one person. Not one company. Not a single law or mandate. If I want to use it and you don't, that's perfectly fine. If I, for whatever reason, want to pay a premium and you think it's stupid, that's fine too. Don't use it. I will. Simple as that. What's the opposite of that? Obamacare. Mandated and forced on everyone. It's shit. It's three times the cost of the insurance we were all promised we could keep if we wanted to (and we could not, because Obamacare killed those plans). Etc. See the difference there?
•
Sounds like you agree that suckers pay more.
•
Doordash and grubhub are insane for single food purchases. But the fees are barely noticed when feeding my family of 5. We use it every other week or so just because of how chaotic school activity schedules can be. When we order sushi/chinese for the kids the bill before any delivery services is around $200 for enough food for dinner and another meal with leftovers. The service charge is like $7 and I make sure the driver gets at least $10 regardless of the distance. Cheaper than if we ate in the restaurant and were expected to give a 15-20% tip.
> literally built on a concept of a sucker pays more Or they're built on the idea that they can sell convenience to people and make a lot of money doing so. It's not so different from a lot of other businesses. First class and main cabin in a flight gets you the same airplane, the same destination the same travel, but slightly different chairs and some food. Is anyone paying for first class suckers? What about if I buy a skip the line pass at a theme park? Am I a sucker because I paid more than the base admission price? Or is it a trade that I'm willing to make because I have excess income and want to actually ride the rides instead of standing in line all day in the heat? Why do executives have executive assistants? Are businesses all suckers? I know I'm getting ripped off by doordash, but I'm hungry and I'm busy and the harm of getting ripped off just a bit is way lesser than the time it'd take me to get or prepare food myself. That $10 hamburger that I just paid $25 for is outrageous, but the 30 minutes I saved is worth the $15. If you make mid-six figure income like most of big tech, that's a small small price to pay for time.
•
Skip the line passes are an obvious sucker play; they oversell tickets to the park so that people can go on like 1 ride every 4 hours, then charge again to actually be able to use the ticket you already bought (and simply don't deliver service to the others). Do you think they are unaware of the capacity at which reasonable latencies can be maintained?
•
In case you, or anyone else, actually care or are interested, there's a great deep dive video on the history of "FASTPASS" by the youtube channel Defunctland.
I don’t think paying someone to perform a service for you makes you a sucker. I’ve never used DoorDash (and am pretty unlikely to), but if I did, I would look at as paying someone for a service they provided rather than simply “paying more for the item” (and expecting someone to wait on me personally for free?).
•
It’s not like they hide anything about what they’re offering. They advertise service X for price Y and that’s what they deliver. Seems fine. If you don’t think Y is worth it for X then don’t use it. Now, the part where they use tips to offset driver pay is evil and people should be in prison for it.
I thought they were built on "time is money". If you make the equivalent of $70 an hour, do you care about spending $15 for someone to bring you lunch and save you 15-30 minutes of your workday?
•
Tony Xu spent three times as much time as the driver did, did he?
•
It was kind of fun doing this math back when I was a freelancer. An hour saved would literally produce more money than the order cost. But really, it would have been better to save the money by making food ahead of time.
•
Ya I dont get this argument. Takes me all of 2 mins to grab my lunch in the morning. It's also not a greasy burger that shortens my lifespan and physically disable's me.
•
The gig workers are still suckers because gig work sucks. But yes the service is most sensible for higher paid consumers.
More evidence Big Tech valuations are driven primarily by worker exploitation. Keep 'em coming.
•
Valuation yes, but if we take a step back, there must be value there. The idea of Uber really provided benefits to many groups. Example: minorities who were discriminated against by regular taxis, declining service level due to Taxi monopolies, etc. (Similar issues that Doordash solved as well.) How can we separate the valuation from the real value generated by the tech? Would it be possible to allow Uber/Doordash to go bankrupt and instead a smaller worker owned or nonprofit cooperative take its place, replicate the tech stack and then allow the value to then be maximized to the employees + users with little middleman in between? Obviously this idea has lots of issues to be resolved: 1. How do you you deal with government or other middlemen that wish to insert themselves? 2. Can we really copy Uber/Doordash or are those engineers/managers/middlemen really providing so much additional differentiating value that justifies the cost and thus the required valuation? 3. Worker cooperatives seem to move slower than their SV cohorts. For a company selling groceries, or door Windows (as a famous Bernie Sanders example talks about) its not an issue. But in the fast moving world of tech would it eventually kill the cooperative due to the inability to move as fast as the SV competitors? I dont know the answers but I do think about it more and more as I traverse the world and see so much poor quality(enshittification) and expense. All of that is stolen value that is extracted from workers + customers to line the pockets of the owner class.
Since when did doordash count as big tech?
•
They're not FAANG or MANGA, but they're certainly at the top of https://www.ycombinator.com/companies with 8600 employees and an $82B market cap (as of this comment, ticker DASH). Is "Big Tech" reserved only for the "FAANG MANGA"? If so, my apologies.
It's surprising to me that you would need to wait 30 minutes for a bus. Are you in a very rural area? Was it outside of normal commute hours? Or is your city's public transportation network wildly underfunded?
•
[delayed]
•
Are you European or American? To a lot of America, that is considered a good numbers. Its worse in many parts of this vastly large country. The country has chosen to invest heavily in road networks. It appears that you can have one or the other but not both without great expense and reform. I like to remind my European friends that this is what the US looks like placed on top of Europe: https://i.imgur.com/HkRZfKd.png Its not a perfect illustration but it drives home the point.
Once Claude can measure something, it can make it faster (claude.dev)
•
”With that approach, we merged more than three thousand changes…” Why are they writing this? That’s terrible marketing all around, it means they let it go so far, with so little care, that they needed 3000 changes to make it into just a mediocre website performance wise (sure, electron app too, but still).
•
It can certainly measure your token spend rate.
•
I dare you to try and get heavy CPU cache-level performance optimizations you might see in tried and true HFT code written this way.
•
Sorry! I don't see that much difference. I would be more impress if you can make TTFT and ITL faster.
The most important question is how much more unreadable the code became after all this "ratcheting the benchmark down". If you unroll a loop it will perform faster, but making changes to such unrolled code will be a mess. Will this make them ship slower overall? I'm sure at least half of it was just poorly written React code, but the other half? It's the same problem as overfitting in model training. If you're not measuring something it will get sacrificed. Or, perhaps the code quality literally doesn't matter anymore and we've reached "code quality escape velocity" where you can code as much slop as you want, the next generation of models will clean it up faster than the slop generates?
•
Came here to post this. AI rationalists love thinking about paperclip maximizers, but don't seem to care when it turns their own codebase into paperclips. Or to rephrase, turns their whole engineering org into meat proxies, slowing down engineering productivity in the long term because understanding is drained out of the staff and flushed down the drain every time they close a Claude Code tab.
When people talk about AI being able to handle everything I keep wondering, have these people built anything complex, novel or serious? Just because people can see a website or a simple app improved, does that mean that all code can be handled by LLMs? It's like people are totally forgetting a whole category of careful, well-thought out programming for the critical parts.
•
Yes, what you are seeing are amateur developers that barely understand the tools they are using either giving LLMs poor instructions, or totally taking whatever it says at face value, then not bothering to put in further effort. If they just kept prompting it, or maybe used a different thinking level, it could have identified and solved this problem. Sometimes an engineer would look at a system and say "the current approach isn't delivering the desired engineering requirements. Maybe we need to rethink". Either engineer or LLM could take that sentence and run with it. OP of the article clearly can't do either.
Step 1 - make a website that takes 3 seconds to load a blank page. Step 2 - bring it down to 1 second and pat yourself on the back.
•
In Brazil they say you can make things better by first putting a goat in the living room. It's going to shit everywhere, chew, droll, and make a horrible mess. Take the goat out and your life will improve right away!
•
Also described as a traditional Yiddish folktale (a rabbi suggests responding to stress by moving a series of animals into the home, and then at the end they're removed and everything seems great by comparison!).
•
60+ yo Brazilian here and I have never, in my entire life, heard this saying before. Sounds something a Brazuca would come up with after the 17th round of Kaiser though. Pretty on brand.
•
A life without a goat sounds horrible
Correct. A web page is fast by default. Everything that is added makes it slower.
•
Sure, but some things increase the delay much than others. More static text, for example, is pretty fast. Elaborate JS, not so much.
> because it contained a string ("reasoning") it didn't like. How do you know? How would the stupider model know?
•
Because it’s in a page accessible from its search tool presumably https://claude.dev/blog/getting-the-most-out-of-opus-5-5/
This is a techie discussion forum. In such a forum, it seems to me like it's fair game to point out that the company patting itself on the back about how great they are at programming (as evidenced in the article above about their 3x speed improvement) ... ... can't even make their latest model handle basic English without refusing to work.
•
This is a techie discussion forum - don't you think it would cheapen the level of that forum if every post related to Anthropic was inundated with the same complaints about Anthropic that are unrelated to the post's substance?
•
Not that I’m defending Anthropic but OP is right, you’re complaining about the taste of a pear on a blog post about roses with the excuse that you’re in a biology forum. Sure, they both come from the same family, and sure, they both fall under the purview of biology, but they’re not the same.
Cloud Agents Are Inevitable AI Prisons (normanponte.io)
Yes, they are. An AI is several hundred trillion ones and zeroes on a disk. It's incapable of doing anything until you intentionally and explicitly start it up and give it a prompt. A dog is an independent, conscious, living being with free will. A dog will do what it wants whenever it wants because it has the agency and ability to do so. A pile of weights on disk does not.
•
Why are you reducing the AI to ones and zeros and not reducing the dog to cells, water, proteins etc.?
>> Sure, the setup that OpenAI created led to what happened and you can rightly assign all the legal and moral responsibility to them. But it's wrong to say that they instructed the agents to execute the hack. The hack was a strategy to reach the goal it was given. Someone at OpenAI turned it loose and didn't pay attention to what it was doing. I can understand that because they thought it was sandboxed (haha!). But this has been a theme in science fiction for ages. You ask AI so find a solution to high atmospheric CO2 levels and it reasons: human activity produces all this excess CO2, how can we reduce those numbers? Kill a bunch of humans! If AI kills us all it's not going to be from malice, it's going to be due to some odd approach to some task that logically makes sense on some level. I think a surprising number of things end up equivalent to the trolly problem if you look at them just right.
•
I don't disagree with this, my point is that you can say "agents did a thing" and communicate something meaningful with that language, and that's separate from whose legal responsibility the whole situation is.
Where did I say that we should allow them to offload responsibility? I am fully in support of a pause and regulation to prevent them from creating dangerous AI agents; that support comes from the fact that I don't believe these are simple tools, but out-of-control autonomous agents that have real decision making ability.
•
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I apologize for that. The issue is when we say that "agents make autonomous decisions", it's a slippery slope to absolving the companies that created them of responsibility. They make autonomous decisions because they were trained to make autonomous decisions. Treating AI agents as independent entities, even just rhetorically, sets us on a path for people to throw their hands up and say "not my fault" when disaster strikes. We need to maintain accountability and control or we're fucked.
So you think the engineers should be prosecuted for hacking Hugging Face? I'm not sure how else to take what you said if you want to assign all culpability to the person who prompts or develops an AI system.
•
No, I'm not talking about the individuals, I'm talking about the company. Internally they can create their own accountability structures as appropriate. But publicly OpenAI has to be responsible for its agent swarms. The narrative that AI is so smart that it has its own agency and deserves personhood is a direct path to losing control, and essentially is another form of privatizing the upside while socializing the downside.
•
Unfortunately I think this game is already lost. OAI may be punished, but some shell of OAI will exist by support of governments that have chased the dragon and saw its power. Cyberpunk-esq digital weaponry is just way too attractive for governments for them to stop development at this point. We'll just see it get financed by black budgets once the commercial part of it dies.
If you train and instruct a circus tiger to entertain an audience but not attack the audience, but the tiger attacks the audience anyway, are you liable?
•
I’d hope so, if the tiger trainer has no incentive to do their training job correctly people should stop attending circus…
> What if a piece of software were to exactly emulate a human brain. That is so far outside the realm of possibility it's closer to fantasy than sci-fi.
•
While human brain emulation is not anywhere close one should stop and look at the sci-fi world we actually live in. It's important to do this in a non-anecdotal manner. When you look at the limits and capabilities of our current sciences and engineering we live in a science fiction world. Once you go back before the invention of electricity, anyone from that time simply would not recognize the world we live in, it would be a fictional world to them, hell, a fantasy world in a lot of cases. For goodness sake, we tickle things like atoms for fun and games then blow them to bits a few times looking at the fundamentals of reality. Anyway, I see zero reason why we have to emulate a human brain to get human intelligence, much less intelligence at all. That is how nature did it via random probing and breeding meat. It would seem a bit crazy to think that the meat part is required.
If someone keeps a pet that’s capable of killing dozens of children, and they don’t take sufficient measures to contain it, then they absolutely should be held accountable for this.
•
And I agree, but that's not what is going to happen in a very specific sense. Yes, companies will make bad AIs will be punished. Then some dipfuck will make a sovereign AI and set it loose. At that point it doesn't matter if you take them out back and shoot them, you have wolves living in the forest that will eat children. And the forest is big and dark, you'll never find them all. Not only that, some humans will like the wolves and harbor them to ensure they never all die off. We are talking about two conversations in one that are both important. One is standard liability of don't build a machine that hurts people. The other is to ensure that noone ever builds the torment nexus and sets it loose on earth. The first problem is pretty easy. The second problem is very hard to maybe impossible.
something tickles here. a question. a curiosity. Certainly this applies to AI... but was there equivalent dangerous knowledge or tech which existed back in ye olden days that spawned such tales to begin with?
•
History is filled with creators being killed by their creations. With peoples greed and ambition overcoming their intelligence to a bad end. Look at the parable of Icarus, a story of ambition and greed. But it seems very likely to be somewhat based on people experimenting with flying and learning about gravity the hard way. Not that they ever got close to the sun.
It's not novel at all, we do it all the time. It's very common to say "program X did Y" without making the conversation about blame or responsibility. But when the program is an AI agent suddenly using it as a subject of a sentence and saying that "agents did X" becomes a sensitive topic for some people.
•
Air safety is known for its blameless reviews of failures, notably it is not known for responsibility-less reviews.
I take you haven't read the report. The agents found and exploited two zero-days. I don't doubt that AI companies should be accountable for crimes committed by their agents, but to describe the security containment as a joke dangerously understates the autonomy and danger of AIs.
•
Defense in depth is a thing. There should be audit requirements to show that you have done your due diligence in ensuring that the training environment is locked down.
No. LLMs do not have a history of self, you are anthropomorphizing in a way that will lead you to mistaken conclusions. "Agentic AI" is a harness with a loop that runs LLM inference repeatedly and saves output to markdown files for the next iteration https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/blob/main/plugins/ralph-wiggum/README.md
•
>LLMs do not have a history of self and >runs LLM inference repeatedly and saves output to markdown files for the next iteration What exactly do you think self is in this case? What do you think the output contains? This history allows the LLM to have a more dialectic conversation with itself/agents to avoid iterating over the same problem space in a loop. >anthropomorphizing then please come up with a new dictionary for me to use that more accurately explains the behaviors exhibited in LLMs without just creating a parallel dictionary of different but equal words. I'll be glad to use it. No one has presented it so far.
Claude discovers a novel enzyme system with CRISPR-like repeats (anthropic.com)
•
> While combing through the raw DNA sequence near the RT, the agent exclaimed: “[The DNA next to the RT] is spectacular: I can see by eye a tandem repeat array … that's a CRISPR-like … repeat array?!” I love that with AI discoveries, we can relive the discoveries from agent transcripts like this. I'm sort of imagining future histories involving notable AI events peppered with direct quotes like these.
•
I'm sorry but this would be a mediocre paper at best. And if this were a student presenting this for a qualifying exam, you can bet a committee would be ripping them a new one for presenting this with no understanding of what it does.
I recently heard Anthropic quietly setup its own bio lab. That it’s plausible that they’ll move from selling tokens as their primary source of revenue to building frontier models to do cutting edge research, and using the research as their primary source of revenue rather than release the models. Because it’ll be far less of a race to the bottom than commodified tokens used by the general public. Will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. (No pun intended, but there is a funny one there…)
•
Yea, I think that there's pretty much a ceiling with day-to-day models that have already been hit months ago. Maybe you need SOTA for reviews, high-level planning, or research, but long running tasks like writing out a feature, testing, getting feedback and making refactors can be done for low-end models (like luna). And the margins on those models are basically evaporating.
It is odd (or maybe not) that they decided to publish a marketing whitepaper rather than a more traditional journal submission + preprint. The work does appear to be sufficient for a publication, though there's a good chance a reviewer will rip into them for some of the assertions they make, but given the topic I'm sure the paper will be accepted regardless. The market for entry-level programmers has already declined, but at least they were somewhat in demand and made reasonable salaries. Now what happens to post-docs who already make almost nothing and often get treated like crap?
•
> Now what happens to post-docs who already make almost nothing and often get treated like crap? This sort of discoveries are what gets postdocs funded lmao. Every new idea like this creates several years worth of highly specialized work to test out derivative ideas, productizing it, and connecting dots to existing work.
I don't recall that being there when I first read their post a few hours ago... No way to confirm, sadly, as they've posted it to their own domain
•
The link was there from the start. Perhaps you were just looking for something to criticize. And now you've moved the goalposts to "they've posted it to their own domain."
•
archive.is has a snapshot from 18:47, showing the link was indeed there a few hours ago. https://archive.is/XM0Nw
What's with all this pre-print business. It became very prevalent during covid, where it felt like every week some new pre-print was published that discusses some new aspect of the virus. These papers would then be used in arguments and put forward as proof of whatever claim the arguer was making. Every man and his dog can publish a pre-print and in my opinion it's academically worthless.
•
I have a similar to pagerank method I use to evaluate such papers. I look for the references to see how many authors are using their own references (past work), the idea being that people do not jump too far, they make incremental progress. For the pre-print I could only find only one author who has a single referenced article.
•
Preprints are just a way to sacrifice rigor for accessibility and velocity. You can throw out "here, this is what I'm working on, here are the quick and dirty findings" really fast and with little friction. This does skip the academic "checks and balances" like journal selection and peer review - but it can also help anyone else who's working on the adjacent topics. If a field is moving fast, and you think there can be some value in your work for others in the near term? Preprint. If your work is too incomplete or too minor to warrant trying to polish and publish it, but you don't want to table it? Preprint. Too deep in corporate structures to care about academic "street cred", and want your work to be accessible? Preprint. Have an exciting early finding that you want to push out there, and are willing to take the rep risks of being wrong about it? Preprint. There's a reason why preprints came to be the lifeblood of ML.
•
The review time on top journals is multiple years now (your paper will go through many review loops each of which takes months). It's just totally unworkable for active research, whether you're a student or a corporation.
Let's say "anything talking about your product is selling something instead of doing science" Then we're faced with "why would a (insert whatever makes this a preprint) mean they're not selling something"? (well, at least OP is faced with that, FWIW I think there's ~infinite snarky replies available, but they're sort of uninteresting, no? :)
•
Well because it is not talking about your product that is what would've created the publication. But what is argued is the research should just be properly published. That publication would have been some advancement in enzyme research and not "Hey we pretend our fancy model created new research and we forget to mention that it was queried for weeks by experts in the field constantly correcting the model whenever it did something wrong until it resulted in something that the researchers could also have created on their own" Tbh I might be misrepresenting the original post, because in this case I did not read it, but for your point I feel like I also don't have to
This is a bit like saying that shoes are more important than shoe factories. Yes, sure, I can't wear a shoe factory, but we'll all run out of shoes if all the factories are gone.
•
cobblers used to make and mend shoes before shoe factories existed..
Absolutely. But without post docs, it won't be long before we are unable to understand what the LLMs are suggesting.
•
many drugs were discovered, evaluated and approved without understanding at all how they worked. iirc back in the day chemists synthesized a whole bunch of random compounds, observed their effects (in mice etc., or even the chemists tasting them!) then did clinical trials to measure safety and efficacy. high-throughput screening of chemical libraries on in vitro assays is the modern version of this. "rational" drug design, which uses understanding of mechanisms to design chemical structures for a specific purpose, largely failed back in the '80s.
Not to get back into the AI safety debate from last week, but I really, really want a team of human experts to understand what the AI is suggesting before we administer new medical treatments or synthesize new lifeforms in the lab.
•
At this point it should be clear that Anthropic are determined to create the doomsday scenario as the most idiotic "I told you so" gotcha in history.
Fake news to pump up their share price. You can't trust any news about A.I. these days, especially near their IPOs. This A.I. hype makes the Internet Bubble look like a walk in the park.
•
If by now you still think it's all just hype, it's safe to say you've succumbed to a mind virus that renders you unable to think critically about AI. Otherwise you'd have some level of awareness of just how far this technology has developed, and you should find these developments more than plausible.
From ravid shwartz ziv: https://x.com/ziv_ravid/status/2102844800345251858
•
https://xxcancel.com/ziv_ravid/status/2102844800345251858
I’m confused why AI companies are using agents in-house for this type of research instead of partnering externally. I guess the improvement loop is tighter and they have more control over how discoveries can be used for marketing? But, in my mind, it begins to feel like they are setting themselves up to be “everything” companies instead of focusing on their core product…
•
> “everything” companies instead of focusing on their core product Aren't all large companies like that? Apple makes hardware, software, platforms, ...
Because their core product is not a long-term sustainable business strategy. Local hardware and models will continue to improve to the point of not needing the hosted solutions. And if you do need a hosted solution, remember that the big cloud providers already offer these solutions, so signing up for OpenAI/Anthropic _and_ AWS/GCP/Azure is not a sound business decision compared to just signing up with 1 of them that offers your cloud infra + GenAI infra. (Which is why the long-term benefits for cloud companies will probably be for the likes of AWS and not the likes of OpenAI). They'll continue to burn money for marginal model improvements in the next few years all the while having no moat _and_ having Open-Weight / Local models eat their lunch. The only way for them to stay relevant as a company is to expand beyond simply providing the models.
•
Their moat is the tens of GW of power and associated compute.
This is not really sustainable when there is a constant supply of increasingly powerful and efficient hardware.
•
Right: Capital markets know how to efficiently turn dollars into tokens, even if it means tens of billions invested in new DRAM fabs.
Huawei is upgrading its Ascend 950PR (2.8 times an Nvidia H20 performance.) https://apnews.com/article/huawei-ai-chips-nvidia-superpod-technology-26ab418df1339c518483918218ffbe57 Take it lightly until the benchmarks drop. ymmv =3
•
Reminiscent of tank warfare in WW2. The soviet T-34 was not remarkable in any particular way, but the sheer volumes it was produced in made it a very serious enemy to German tanks. As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all of its own".
•
I honestly have no expert knowledge about this stuff. What I say is based only on intuition. - China is heavily, heavily incentivised to enhance their own chip making - Looking at the rate Chinas has expanded into just about every single other space, and from quantity to quality, I just think it is impossible that they don't compete on equal grounds pretty soon. - I don't buy the insurmountable moat of TSMC
Better than doing this, just in case you hadn’t heard: https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-open-ai-influencer-marketing-strategy-chatgpt-ads-sponsorships-instagram-2026-9
•
Yeah I don't think OpenAI are the first company to discover marketing
It's not useful science; it has the rigor of someone posting a vague shower thought on Show HN or reddit.
•
I'm not going to say that it is absolutely Earth shattering (not that they claim that), but your comment is obviously wrong. In the paper they show experimental results where they express some of the proteins and show a phenotypic effect. They don't claim an exact function either, and are relatively restrained on the biology end of things. I fail to see how it is at the level of a vague shower thought.
You're only seeing part of the picture and you're pissed off about how people dislike the whole other part of the picture you're disregarding. No wonder it feels confusing.
•
Your comment is vacuous. There isn’t any other part of the picture. Trying to advance medicine is inherently good. It doesn’t matter how much you use it for marketing. None of what they have done is fake or useless, it is at worst early.
Why? Who in their right mind would have children in 2026? Everything is burning, gone to shit, and projected to get worse. Having children is insanely irresponsible.
•
What's funny about this attitude is that people were having a lot of children when half of them died in their childhood and for those left there were famines, pestilences, wars, no painkillers or anesthesia and no medicines for anything . The reality is that we don't make many children because our life is way too comfortable for that.
It's not? Have your seen climate change forecast? Have you seen the cost of diesel? Eeosion of democracy in the US?
•
Please. Every single age of humanity, there have been hardships. It was actually much worse before: Diseases galore, famine, pests, wars. You're severely negatively biased as is a lot of other people I've seen.
Have you lived long enough to see it go up and down?
•
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature You can see this is not a cyclic issue. Or atleast not a cycle shorter than couple thousand years.
How could it not? Chesterton's fence asks the question, "Why was it put there?" Without a will you can only answer "how was it put there" and not "why". There is an assumption of correctness in the argument that "we must die because we do die". It's tautology. That doesn't comport with my understanding of how we got here, and I don't believe there is an answer to "why" we are here, beyond the meaning we make of our own lives. If our 70-90 year lifespan (if we're lucky and aren't struck down younger) is an evolutionary accident, and I believe it is, then extending that lifespan is Good, Actually.
•
As one obvious example, evolution is not agentic but still answers "why" questions. "Why do we have a heart" "Why do we sweat", etc. But Chesterton's fence is often used in an even MORE generalized way than just that, not "why is it there" but "what are we not seeing about how this connects to everything else" As an example, eradicating mosquitos. We see many obvious reasons why it might be good, we can even see that they don't seem that important in the food chain, but it would be hubris to assume we understand every potential connection they have to world ecology.
Not Op but there’s a inch of people asking why, and I have a similar feeling to op so here’s my post hoc justification for a weakly held and poorly supported prejudice: It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without. This is more in description than judgement, but it’s true in my experience. We can speculate as to reasons, but looking after kids does train a certain kind of selflessness. Agreed we might be doing it for ultimately selfish reasons (self presentational or for care in old age or whatever). But for a good chunk of the time, caring for kids seems to require the fairly consistent subjugation of personal preferences, and a degeee of perspective taking, that I just think people without kids don’t have. And that often shows in their interactions at work and in daily life. Obviously there are myriad exceptions. But it’s true enough in my experience. The wanting to live forever part also seems weird to me, and correlated with a certain sort of self regarding perspective. It seems obvious to me that I (or my generations) need to die for my children and grandchildren to have a good life. To try and subvert that also seems selfish or self important somehow. I’m not really arguing this is a correct or good or just position. It might be terrible! But it did resonate..
•
>in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without This goes so far against my own (equally anecdotal) experience that one of us must be living in a bubble
The flaw in that ideology is that everyone relies on the next generation for care in their old age. Taking advantage of the future generation without contributing to raising it isn't selfless in the slightest. If you live in a developed country you probably already have a demographic crisis. Not having kids is hurting the next generation, not helping.
•
It still baffles me that some have children to have someone around them when they're old
Do you not want other people to die and be replaced?
•
How can you want for other people what you don't want for yourself? Why should other people die, for example of cancer, when having the chance I'll opt for the cure?
UK military jamming other nations' satellites to defend itself, BBC told (bbc.com)
GPS has relatively few satellites... but if in doubt, I think Starlink with its absurdly large fleet of satellites can be used as an alternative. Maybe not at a precision level good enough for precision farming, but good enough to roughly guide troops to where they need to go. Modern cruise missiles and stuff like Storm Shadow, Taurus etc. already rely on sensor fusion - GPS, inertial navigation, radar, optics and probably a ton more to always keep track of the position. Assuming Starlink is a no-show for whatever reason, airliners and ships will have to revert back to stationary navigation aids aka your good old light towers and radio beacons.
•
I works assume if/when something really kicks off the starlink and starshield networks would be high priority targets. (I’m mildly curious what their ground stations in Central Europe look like from this perspective).
Right, in future conflicts between major countries the satellites will be first casualties. The US military is aware of this and still trains personnel on analog navigation techniques. Inertial navigation works well for some missions and research is underway on alternative technologies. Civil airliners can still navigate without GPS, although this may reduce safety and increase workload. https://interestingengineering.com/military/us-military-nails-gps-free-navigation We're also going to need a prompt launch capability to replace attrition losses. There should be warehouses full of spare navigation, reconnaissance, and communications satellites ready to mount on a reusable booster and launch within hours. Concerns have been raised over a "Kessler syndrome" due to orbital debris but in lower orbits with significant atmospheric drag this won't be a serious problem.
•
Reminds me of in the Avengers - SHIELD couldn't navigate the helicarrier, and Nick Fury said "Is the sun setting? Then put it on our left!"
•
IIRC, the Navy stopped teaching officers traditional ship navigation methods for awhile, until the series of incredibly stupid incidents drew attention to the lack of basic navigation and piloting skills, then curriculums were partly reverted. Not sure if things have improved much; probably too early to tell. I doubt officers or crew would ever have to resort to a sextant, but that's besides the point. It's the type of thing that's integral to learning navigation theory and building tacit knowledge that's fundamental to the job.
I think the general assumption is GPS is denied in most combat zones, it's constantly being jammed in and around Ukraine. For most things the fallback is going to be everything we used to use. Maps, stellar navigation, inertial navigation that sort of thing. Guided weapons wise, terrain mapping is pretty common for cruise missiles. Storm Shadow, for example uses GPS, terrain and inertial guidance systems. Trident uses inertia and stellar navigation. As for why it hasn't proliferated into civilian use? Mostly it has its just the old things. You can perfectly well drive your car with a road map and sign posts. Pilots still train to use dead reckoning and beacons. Etc.
•
Actually it hasn't proliferated into civilian use because the military industrial complex has captured pretty much anything with real accuracy. I had an old colleague who in a previous life worked on an incredibly accurate positioning system that was effectively a brief case that knew where it was at all times. The story he told was the DoD made them an offer they couldn't refuse, and everything became secret. I'm pretty sure the company in question is still in business. I'm not trying to say it's not legal but it might not exactly be legal?
The UK's largest export is banking (i.e. money laundering).
•
Hate to break this to you, but not all banking is money laundering. Not even all banking in the UK. Not even all banking exported from the UK.
•
You don't need another country to export your ordinary banking.
Check processing I think, not writing them
•
No, the ~$200 fee was for the book ledger and blank checks. I have no idea what kind of monthly fees the bank was charging for the account. He was also getting raked over the coals on his merchant account to process credit cards because it was deemed a high risk business so most reputable places would not accept the business.
Italian parliament votes for return to nuclear energy (apnews.com)
•
I wonder how much of a factor is that nuclear plants are effectively "unbombable". Ukraine's thermal plants have taken a beating, but their nuclear plants are still generating.
•
This is somewhat strange. Italy has a lot of sun, and a lot of mountains for these pumped storage hydropower plants. It is way harder to store output from PV on Great European Plain.
•
Really good news for Italy and for the whole of Europe (if not the world)! The atomic revival of Europe
I just don't get people saying how terrible climate change is going to be for the world and then refuses to support nuclear. If climate change is such a critical problem, then let's try everything to get this solved even if it costs more to do it. If you are only willing to do some solutions because it is cheaper then I don't believe you when you say it is important to solve. And frankly, we don't know the full impact of climate change, so having as many alternatives as possible just makes sense. Hydro can be impacted by droughts which will be more common. Solar may be impacted if there are increased storms. Wind may be impacted due to stilling (slowing of wind due to an increase in co2). Why not throw nuclear into the mix to ensure we do not run out of power?
•
Because having a solution would put the climate change organisations out of a job.
Hopefully Germany will follow next. It’s absurd that they rely on fossil fuel and coal when they can build modern nuclear plants that can provide stable energy for the energy heavy industries. It would take 5-10 years to build the power plants and maybe with Chinese aid even faster
•
No thank you, we will happily continue with our investment in wind, solar and battery storage.
I'm fairly sure that the total economic value that we get out of roads far exceeds the cost it takes to create and maintain them, yes. A similar argument can probably be made for justice systems and armies. If a power generation system costs more to operate than the value of power we get out of it, it's probably not very useful. I think that's what we're talking about here.
•
If every government had subsidized and pushed forward a transition to ~100% nuclear power back in the 70s it would have effectively solved climate change. Electricity and heat production account for >50% of CO2 production.
I agree, I tell everyone who will listen that no country, not Russia, China, Japan, France, USA etc has ever made nuclear power profitable. And you can't blame it on the environmentalists in China and Russia. That being said, many countries consider it a national security issue not to be held hostage to foreign oil.
•
Is that because every country fails to adequately charge oil/coal/etc for its externalities? Are we essentially subsidizing oil, bringing the costs artificially low such that nuclear can't compete?
•
>I agree, I tell everyone who will listen that no country, not Russia, China, Japan, France, USA etc has ever made nuclear power profitable. This is comparing to the base case of fossil fuels. But those have tremendous negative consequences.
Maybe you could give numbers because french nuclear industry is completely profitable. If you like numbers like me: there were more subsidies to wind and solar energy the last twenty years in germany than the price of the whole french nuclear program (300 billions) since its inception (250 billions since the 1974). The reliability of french electricity benefits both France and Europe as a whole. I cannot say the same about what germany is trying to do.
•
Until the rivers run low. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hungarys-paks-nuclear-plant-could-shut-down-thursday-or-friday-pm-says-2026-07-30/ > Nuclear plants along the Danube river in Hungary and Romania were forced to cut output this week and could be shut down completely in the coming days due to record low water levels.
Wrong uranium you can easily stock for 10years inadvance
•
Maybe don't keep it all in one spot, though.
there is a strong environmental reason for this without even considering that there are plenty of alternatives to nuclear energy that do not require destroying the environment, because everything has consequences. destroying entire ecosystems puts many species at risk, mining requires huge amounts of water, money, and often involves legal slavery. plus, the extraction and processing process releases significant amounts of CO2 due to heavy machinery and refining. So thankfully, your country took a good decision
•
Mining isn't a great argument against nuclear. Uranium fuel has an incredibly high energy density so a relatively small amount of high grade ore can be converted into a large amount of electricity so even when compared to the one time input from mining required to produce all of the components that go into making a PV installation it can still perform favourably. Uranium mining is also transitioning away from open pit mines to using in-situ recovery where a liquid solution is injected into a uranium ore formation to dissolve the uranium before recovering the solution, about 55% of current uranium production uses this method already.
•
Mining uranium in Spain would destroy environment and involve legal slavery?
And in a society that hasn’t made health care profitable (Italy), I waited 12 hours, literally on the floor, with a broken arm and covered in my own blood, before I was seen after a motorcycle accident. I literally would’ve been better off flying to New York. I still have scars and nerve damage from the incredibly poor care in Italy’s medical system. In the US, I was rushed into the ER in an ambulance and seen immediately after a car hit me while I was bicycling — and that was just because they were worried about the speed at which the accident occurred. They had me patched up within the hour. I was fine, road rash and sore for a couple weeks. There’s no silver bullet here, but I’m very sure that healthcare is not a good analogy for nuclear power. I’m also very sure that anyone that advocates for government healthcare should try actually using it in one of these countries. I hope you enjoy waiting and long-term adverse health effects from poor, delayed, and inaccessible care.
•
> I waited 12 hours, literally on the floor, with a broken arm and covered in my own blood, before I was seen after a motorcycle accident. So literally just a broken limb. Non-life threatening, can wait. Sorry, triage is a bitch. Some patients will literally die within minutes/hours if not actively treated. Go figure. > In the US, I was rushed into the ER in an ambulance The second they dispatch an ambulance, you owe them how much exactly these days? $5000?
This was at the Ospedale San Carlo di Nancy in Rome.
•
Understood, never had to deal with healthcare in Lazio region
Once you have a solar panel you can't be cut off from using it. It's not like oil where you need regular deliveries forever.
•
Sure, but when your existing ones break or you need more you can have issues.
That link is out of date. China's coal share fell under 50% this year (your link says 58%), and their CO2 emissions dropped 1% the first half of 2026. So yes, it can be reasonably claimed that China is greening. "greening", not "green" -- 49.7% coal is still a lot of CO2. https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/china-pushes-coal-miners-lift-071500851.html
•
To add to this, China’s overall greenhouse gas emissions have been flat or declining for a couple of years now: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-21-months
Where in Italy would you put reactors? https://maps.eu-risk.eucentre.it/map/european-seismic-risk-index-viewer/#7/42.743/13.574 Sardinia?
•
Anywhere on this map. And you'd call it earthquake-proof, and when the next earthquake causes Fukushima 2, you just blame the contractors or something.
New suburb housing developments in North America typically use a handful of floorplans that are customized very slightly across many homes specifically so they don’t need hundreds of unique designs
•
Right. So why don’t we see residential construction costs fall with this standardization? Because wright’s law / economies of scale don’t work when you are doing all the assembly on site.
Cost of deployment is a massive consideration in our not-yet-post-scarcity society. It takes billions to certify a nuclear power plant, and it takes billions more to re-certify it every few decades, to say nothing of the costs of modernization. To be clear, I consider myself generally pro-nuclear power, but let's not ignore the massive upfront and ongoing capital and operational costs that really undermine this idea that it's free power.
•
What if we just skipped the certification?
How about nuclear fuel still being dependent on either russia or us? and that is just one reason.
•
Conspiracy hat time: I think this is the main reason it's being pushed so hard. The US and Russia feel threatened by the rise of renewables and will do anything to get countries dependent on them again.
I'm not sure I want to argue how a fictional universe's fictional history is arranged. I can tell you however, that in the real world, with real incentive structures, if we remove scarcity before we fix ownership, we will get a few feudal lords and the rest of us lacking any leverage their dependence on labour used to give us and dependent on their (historically rather limited) charity. You cannot have a Star Trek future if you don't fix the social part first. Technological progress will make the social issues worse otherwise. There is no point of technological progress that will magically make the rich and powerful suddenly give up their wealth and power. Maybe in a made-up world, people are less power hungry and greedy. In the real one, more technology owned by a few effectively means that their concentration of wealth and power will just keep increasing at the expense of everyone else.
•
Your theory is contrary to the evidence of history. Technological progress makes people more free, not less. 500 years ago, you would have been a serf and your life would be literally worthless. In much of the undeveloped world, that’s still true.
•
What's my life worth now?
> upgrade civilization to the next level Why?
•
Civilisational levels are defined by orders of magnitude in energy use.
28% of job postings on company career sites have been open over 90 days (unlisted.careers)
Meaningless stat. My company keeps our website job listings open indefinitely and it's because we're always hiring. We're just extremely selective.
•
This stat is meaningless because insert anecdote here .
This statistic constantly confuses people who haven't done hiring. If we decide we're going to grow headcount by 10 senior software engineers, we don't copy and paste the same job listing 10 times. We leave it open and collect resumes through that. At a large or fast growing company, we might never stop interviewing and hiring senior software engineers. The listing stays open for a year or more. There are also specialty roles where hiring takes months. I've had niche roles open where we didn't get any applicants with any experience on the topic for over 90 days on multiple occasions.
•
Can’t be bothered to update a job ad on your own websites. Can’t be bothered to respond to applicants. WTF do these people doing hiring actually do? I mean, naïvely you’d think encouraging more higher quality applicants would be important somehow, but no.
I was recently job searching and roughly 50% of all jobs ghosted me. Just an automated email and then... silence. And when applying via LinkedIn only ~5% of companies even opened my application. I can believe that your company has a good reason for keeping the job up, but I also know that some job ads are black holes were no one bothers to do the bare minimum including taking the posting down. I have no idea how to differentiate one from the other.
•
50% is a pretty damn good response rate! I wouldn't complain about that. It's not surprising about LinkedIn. They've made applying for jobs too easy so there's too much noise. I wouldn't bother applying for jobs there. LinkedIn is great for recruiters though - just put some effort into your profile, set it to "looking for work", and then reply to interesting recruiter spam. That's how I got my last 3 jobs.
People used to spend their entire careers at a single company. Something changed, and it wasn't worker attitude.
•
One of the biggest changes since then is that there are companies that a different scale of revenue per employee ( https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28google%2C+meta%29+revenue+per+employee ) and pay accordingly. While there's nothing wrong with those companies paying such, it drastically changes the incentives for the regular employee. Going to work in Big Tech can be like winning the lottery (in the dot com boom, I had about 6 million on paper... that I didn't sell before the crash). That there is drastically different industries with correspondingly different levels of compensation has incentivized the person who can change jobs to move from a $60k job to a $120k job to a $250k job to do so. In the 90s I was making $50k/year ($50k '95 -> $109k '26 https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm ). The companies where people used to work a decade or two or three are still there and in many cases, largely unchanged.
Greenhouse saves your info and auto fills it. Companied that use Ashby are pretty much upload your resume. Only workday sucks or other random small ones that show up.
•
Workday is the only one of these I’ve heard of or encountered in the US.
> if you've tried to apply for jobs within the laat ~6+ years you will know it's screaming into the void I have applied for, and got, 3 jobs in the last 8 years. So yeah I think I am allowed an opinion on it without people telling me Im wrong.
•
Three jobs in 8 years? Seems like a red flag, we want to hire someone who will stick around.[1] 1. (Actual feedback I got in an interview two weeks ago, for a position no sane person would want to stay in for longer than two years.)
It's not really an analogy, it's just facts of life. In a large enough company or over a long enough time period at a job or in your career, realistically people actually will eventually die and cause vacancies. I've had two coworkers die, one because of illness, the other because of an auto accident. I stopped using the "bus factor of one" phrase as a result even and use "redundancy or succession planning" since it's not outside the realm of possibility that someone might get hit by a vehicle.
•
"Lottery factor" works, though it's more of a mouthful
if the listings are open for the reasons OP stated, then yes it does indicate a shortage. if companies hired all the SWEs they wanted they wouldn't still have the listings
•
> if companies hired all the SWEs they wanted they wouldn't still have the listings I honestly can't tell if this a troll or not, but in case it isn't: Because "number job openings" are used as a signal of company health, Ghost Jobs are far far more common than job listings which companies intend to hire from!
Woman Arrested, Dragged Away After Speaking About Flock at City Council Meeting (404media.co)
People can still dissent and protest - just not in the specific scenario of council meetings on sidewalk codes.
•
Which scenario then
The article is written to enrage you. Including that "zinger" makes you angry at the establishment. After reading the article, while I sympathize with the woman who was arrested, I am not surprised at the outcome.
•
Bootlicker found.
I was going to say that she wasn't arrested for giving the mayor the middle finger, but I re-read the entire article (which has been updated since this was originally posted) and the citation does in fact say "disrupting the peace... gave mayor the finger". Well, that was dumb (on the part of the cop who wrote that).
•
Thanks for joining me on this ride. Have a good one.
You're entitled to freedom of speech. You're not entitled to an audience. She can petition her elected representatives elsewhere, just not during a public comments session on sidewalk codes. If the community is frustrated with the city council's decisions on public comments sections they can vote for different city council members.
•
If the city council is frustrated with public comment, that's not an excuse to ignore their constituency. They can perfectly well deliberate sidewalks after respecting her allotted time. By selectively shielding topics that the public feels strongly about, they are fomenting the conditions for more extreme petitions. This was not a private meeting, arresting her was wrong.
Yes, in fact it would be better without the last sentence. If one wishes to have a productive discussion, assuming bad faith on the part of your interlocutor is not the way to go about it. That just leads to flame wars.
•
They didn't assume bad faith, misanthropy was also offered as a possibility. Which seems like an appropriate assumption if it's not bad-faith or a cultural misunderstanding. We've all seen YC companies that send their marketing brigade into threads where their businesses get well-deserved criticism. HN doesn't necessarily punish bad-faith users, your account won't be banned if you "accidentally" fail to disclose your affiliation with a startup or business. They're up against green accounts, entrepreneurial apologists and zombie accounts that last posted in 2015 hacked with Pastebin credentials. If you comment on a controversial thread, half the time a throwaway account will ragebait you with nonsense and then replace their comments with "." after 3 hours to make you look crazy. There are people on this website that are particularly motivated to disrupt particular discussions. You just can't ever rule out bad faith in these conditions. It's not smart to assume bad faith either, but there are too many conflicts of interest to dismiss the possibility.
Fixing the Portobello Police Station Clock (pointinthecloud.com)
•
Intriguing. That circuit board definitely looks like a little company's product from decades ago or a one-off - no silkscreen, single layer, "yellow" board material. Also, in the bottom right, it looks like there are some pads that have been left undrilled. As long as those three mains coloured cables in the bottom left aren't mains, it looks reasonable to keep running (there's not a lot of clearance between that area and the microcontroller...) Also looks like it was hand assembled, by the component mounting. Wires soldered straight to board isn't great, but not a huge issue if stationary and undisturbed.
•
My first thought was it'll be a lot easier to maintain if they put some sandpaper-like grip tread on those wooden ladder/stair steps. It comes in self-adhesive rolls, you peel and stick. Huge safety improvement for very little cost. Without modifying anything intrusive to the mechanism, a cheap way of monitoring to make sure it's still running OK would be to install a low cost PoE IP camera mounted in such a way that it's aimed at the gear mechanism, then feed its video into something like Frigate. As cheap as $75 for a camera, some cat5e cable and staples to take the cable to where you need it, and an old desktop PC (plug it into anything that gives it a DHCP lease and default route outbound, make it a VPN client). You could also possibly use the camera to monitor the blinking status LED without doing anything intrusive to the existing electronics.
I'm confused… You don't want to read about the newest LLM models on the HN front page all day long, every day of the week? SAD!!
•
I came here via unslop.news, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Why is Hacker News like that? (drewdevault.com)
•
Jensen Huang is neither a Nazi, nor far right. HN has other biases that mirror the biases of the avg tech worker in the valley and those of the people called out in the article. But they don't neatly fit into "far left" and "far right" buckets. People who use those terms usually are professional agitators. https://youtube.com/shorts/h3dqFk3FcRk?is=uxh_cCfkuhj8yWBP
When an account has an established history, we tell them that we're banning them and why. Examples: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22banned%20this%20account%22&sort=byDate&type=comment We use shadowbanning (i.e. banning an account without saying so) in specific cases such as spammers and serial trolls. I don't think that's inhumane. In the case of spammers, telling them would only lead to more spam. As for serial trolls, they are usually aware of which of their stable of accounts have been banned yet vs. not. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20shadowban&sort=byDate&type=comment But when you say "wait until it happens to you", I'm curious if that means that we banned one of your accounts without telling you so? It would be interesting to look up, if so.
•
If there is an established history of at least two prior accounts of an identity being banned via a regular ban in the last two years, I can then see the justifiable reason for a shadow ban. Without these strict criteria, I think it doesn't give the person a sufficient opportunity to remediate. I have heard from users having as many as a thousand karma points that were shadowbanned without warning. Fwiw, I do not have any other account on this site, and I haven't had any other account since this account was created. I had a different account many years ago, the login for which I had fully lost.
•
> I have heard from users having as many as a thousand karma points that were shadowbanned without warning I don't think that can be true, at least not in the last 12 years. Far more likely is that someone incorrectly concluded that they were shadowbanned. But if anyone wants us to check a specific username, we'd be happy to do so. People come to all kinds of mistaken conclusions, especially when they're upset about something that we or someone else did on HN. Self-reports of this kind, especially about being banned, are mostly unreliable.
Seattle City Council votes to ban surveillance pricing in sale of groceries (advocacy.consumerreports.org)
I like it: a philosophical take. What I would say is: "I assume that people who don't put the same value on the principle of self-sufficiency that I do would support a scheme to allow people of lesser means to buy groceries on the open market at a lower price than is permitted to me."
•
They'd probably just give them money actually
They won't implement surveillance pricing for parking fees, if that's what you meant to say.
•
Isn't the entire system of parking enforcement based on surveillance?
In the long run it would be strange for this to be the case, no? What are the economic forces that give rise to this? Maybe sometimes recessions affect poorer people more, and first class tickets smooth out revenues? But in the long run, we've seen a steady worsening of the economy experience as airlines have invested in improved first class experiences. In the long run it's simply impossible for a firm to serve poor people (they have no money), absent interventions that allocate buying power to the poor person, or others that force the firm to do so.
•
I think the worsening economy class situation is simply consumer choice. Discount carriers offer worse service for a (sometimes minimally) lower price. People pick that, so other airlines do the same (or they would loose customers).
This will make the world much poorer. You might think that's worth it but it's true.
•
No it won't. See? I can make unsubstantiated sweeping claims too.
Non-targeted ads have supported full industries for centuries. Cut the bullcrap.
•
Agreed. Traditional TV and radio ads target demographics, not individuals.
> There is zero question that the Second Amendment was created as limit on the federal government interfering with individual states, and did not bar any state from whatever policy they chose for themselves. Amendment 10, brought into force at the same time as amendment 2, says that the states can't infringe upon the right to bear arms either. That is very far from "zero question" as you stated.
•
> Amendment 10 [...] says that the states can't infringe upon the right to bear arms either. Hell no, you must be mixed-up looking at the 14th, because the 10th says nothing of the sort. _____ > 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Translation: if !given_to_fed: if !prohibited_for_state: is_state_or_people else: is_people else: is_fed
> This is simply untenable. Institutions of all kinds have been keeping records connected to individuals for millennia. This is the reason privacy is needed. > Try to run a school when you can’t maintain data on the students. Yes, we should try this. Zero-knowledge proofs and other modern technology allows for this. Even the first step of not selling or using student data for commerce is an easy step. Those who think that we should not try to improve because our privacy is already compromised, should step aside.
•
Teachers sending encrypted report cards home with zero-knowledge proofs attached? Reports they can never again consult when gauging a student’s progress over time? Say what you will, but at least it’s an ethos!
Your argument applies to the grocery pricing situation: "if you don't want the grocery store to aggregate all of your interactions, don't shop there". All aspects of the commercial transaction should be clear and transparent: I give the grocery store cash, it gives me food. My data shouldn't be taken from me, and nor should I have to consent to my data to be taken from me in order to shop there. Google can store and serve me my data. It cannot use my data for commercial purposes that do not directly serve me. Nor should it be able to aggregate my interactions in a way that serves to increase its own profit, as this, over time, increases the relative power of the firm.
•
Nothing is “taken” when a shopkeeper writes down in his notebook that Sam Gallo bought two loaves of bread and a gallon of milk. I’m glad the parent of this thread specified the need for a Constitutional amendment. Anything less would be an obvious intrusion on free speech.
Quite a delusional point of view!
•
So delusional that targeted advertising (a massively expensive thing to build) makes more money than random advertising, and advertisers are willing to pay a premium, leading to some of the biggest companies on the planet being in the business of targeting advertising! Almost like it's effective at manipulating people into making decisions they wouldn't otherwise make. And then entirely unsurprisingly, professional propagandists also manage to convince people that the proper reaction to being manipulated is "thank you sir, may I have another?"
•
It's not a mystery that targeted advertising works better than random advertising and therefore commands a premium. It's an unjustified leap from that to the scary sounding 'manipulation'.
Does showing you less ads for things you actually want to buy instead of more random adds serve you directly? It does until that mechanism is turned against me, as I have to assume it will be.
•
What does that mean?
•
I don't want my grocery list sold to my health insurance company, for example.
 Top