encomiast
encomiast on Hacker News
I guess minimalism is relative. I wouldn’t describe this as minimalism. Minimalism is not using a tool “that combines together X, BlueSky as well as Farcaster and Lens”. To me that is a way to cope with the opposite of minimalism.
You actually can just leave Twitter and read a book instead.
Maybe worth pointing out that this is also decision laundering. If computers can't make decisions, corporations certainly can't. In fact, corporate decision laundering seems more dangerous to me.
> If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content.
I am 100% okay with this. I don't want what Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook offer, so I no longer have an account these platforms. But I do have an account with my local electric utility. It's my only option. And if I want to find information about an outage, it's posted on their Facebook page. I'm 0% okay with this.
Random number generators notwithstanding.
I wonder if we will get to the point where this is all so easy that we'll need something like Flickr to organize all the random things one has vibe-coded.
It's already starting to feel like the days when your uncle would make you sit in a dark room and look at his vacation slide show. Sure, they're fine photos, but we quickly got to the point where a photograph was so easy to create that it needed to be extraordinary not just in execution, but in vision, timeliness, originality, etc. And even then, if you couldn't get it in front of the right editor, it just sat in a pile.
It is amazing, that just a few years ago this would have been a pretty amazing, portfolio-worthy project and today it's "pretty cool", said with a shrug.
The problem is that saying "we need to do something" is equally unhelpful because "we" isn't a thing that takes action in any ordinary sense of the word. You are just putting words together in a syntactically correct order that are devoid of actionable meaning. The way this sentence is normally interpreted is,
somebody needs to do something, but it's not clear who that somebody is, or what power they need in order to act on a large enough scale to be effective.
If you can't say with any clarity what action needs to take place and by whom, then you aren't really contributing to a solution. Reacting to a fire in a house is much easier because it is clear how individual action can help. For example: you can call the fire department, I can get a fire extinguisher. Notice the word "we" is not in those sentences.
Some people are clearly doing less nothing: there are activists protesting, formal political action groups, scientists doing research, etc. What isn't as clear is whether any this can actually overcome the huge social and economic structural issues to actually make a dent.
This does seem to be the result of human activity. But I'm not really sure how the words 'we' and 'choose' work in a sentence like that. The collective of humanity doesn't really make choices the way I understand that word. And, while individual citizens make choices that contribute to this, and business people and politicians make choices that prioritize the short-term over the long term, it's not really correct to say they prefer and therefor choose the climate change. It seems like we don't have a good vocabulary for talking about the cumulative results of small choices.
Right! I have been looking longingly in the direction of Grand Seiko.
Maybe it's just a general fatigue from AI, notifications, microphones, and cameras everywhere, but I'm pretty sure my next watch will be something from Germany or Switzerland containing springs and gears.
I think most people want to talk and have only the person they are talking to listen.
I understand your point. Music is one of those careers, like professional athlete, that make parents cringe when optimistic children announce an intention to pursue it. Your numbers are off (the base pay of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra last time I checked was around $200k) and there ~30 violinists in that orchestra alone. But it's not an order of magnitude.
But just because the numbers are small doesn't mean society does not support them. There just isn't a need for a lot of them. It would be like saying society does not support professional athletes. Clearly it does, but only at the highest level. And at that level, it supports the very well.
> Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary
I apologize. I come from this world, have close friends in major orchestras and experience on the world's opera stages. This culture is full of shibboleths: referring to works as "songs", clapping in the wrong place, hell, even pronouncing 'Don Giovanni' the same way you pronounce "Don Draper" lets people know you are not from around here.
> Even the first-chair musicians and conductors have side gigs.
A principal player (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair') in a major symphony orchestra in the United States makes $250k-400k a year. These are extremely competitive jobs and they are paid well. Certainly enough to live on if you wanted to.
These people often teach, but not really because they need a "side-gig." If you ask them, they will likely tell you they feel a certain duty to prepare the next generation, they like teaching, and their rehearsal/performance schedule affords them the time.
The video makes claims about how much easier it is to learn to play with this keyboard layout vs, the traditional piano layout. But learning the chords has never been the difficult part of playing the piano. Learning arpeggios, scales, repertoire, all while being relaxed and expressive is the hard part. I wonder if this makes any of that easier?
It seems like this can get you from zero to the equivalent of picking up a few chords and how to strum on guitar fairly quickly. But I would be curious what mastery of this instrument looks like? If you were the Oscar Peterson or Franz Liszt of this thing, how would the layout limit or enable you?
To say nothing of this bit of markup, which actually raises an exception in the browser:
`<link rel="icon" href="data:;base64,=">`
I had to give up when the first example of a "bug" that the author could see, which others are blind to, was search results.
"In some cases, people sent me their actual search results. In every such case, the search results did not contain a good result that I could see"
Software that does not meet expectations, especially in a field like search, which is basically a long running war between SEO and search engines, is not a 'bug'. That's like saying there is 'bug blindness' in the publishing industry because when I pick up a random book, it sucks, even though others think it's fine. Sure, maybe something is wrong, could even be improved, but lets save the word 'bug' for something more specific.
I'm not sure this is 100% true. Courts have found that in order for the exception to the 4th amendment at borders to apply the search has to bear some relationship to the purpose of securing borders. For example
"to conduct such an intrusive and nonroutine search under the border search exception (that is, without a
warrant), the Government must have individualized suspicion of an offense that bears some nexus to the border search exception’s purposes of protecting national security, collecting duties, blocking the entry of unwanted persons, or disrupting efforts to export or import contraband. See also United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 620 (1977) (“The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country.”). If a nonroutine search becomes too “attenuated” from these historic rationales, it “no longer [will] fall under” the exception"
-- US v. RAYMOND IDEMUDIA AIGBEKAEN (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/17...)
Of course whether border agents know or care about this is a different story and by the time you are quoting precedent, you're probably beyond any of this being helpful.
Possibly the best thing about Washington D.C. is that the National Gallery of Art (along with, I think, all the Smithsonian) is free. This means you just take a casual stroll through without any of the pressure of having spent a sizable sum like you might to visit a place like the Art Institute in Chicago. In Chicago a visit is an event, you need to see the Seurat, the Grant Wood, etc. You've spent money and you need make it count.
In D.C. you can literally walk in, go look at the big Joan Mitchell for 10 minutes and continue on your day. Or you can wander through a room you've never been interested in and find something and then go to lunch. Without the commitment to get everything done, you are suddenly free.
Good libraries (edit: even mediocre libraries) also have this quality.
I can't speak for Github's situation specifically, but I work in an org that is often cursed by "acting" leadership. People in these acting roles don't have a real mandate to do much other than follow orders, try not break anything, and keep the seat warm. They basic tread water, which in many environments is better described as drowning more slowly.
Prediction: these last two years mark the beginning of the end of US financial hegemony.
This is not a paper. This is local TV news: it says WPTV West Palm Beach in the top left. It also says it is converted from an on-air report. My hunch is their audience knows what they mean when they say St. Lucie. Still, it seams like it wouldn't hurt in cases like this where the story gains a wider audience.
It’s actually even worse because, as countless color illusions demonstrate, our perception of color is a result of much more than just the spectral power distribution of the light.
Stealing may be the wrong word, but I actually think this is important. I don't think the providers have been up-front about how we should be handling these thought signatures. A large system with a lot of users may be capturing these and even caching them to send them back with future requests. If data can be pulled out of these, then they need to be treated more like cookies than opaque, encrypted nonces.
I agree. Source: I am an Azure user.
The headline and the deck of the article are contradictory. The headline claims art "invented humanity" while the deck says art allowed us to "find out who they really were." One is an invention the other is a discovery. One implies a malleable identity, the other a ground truth.
I'm partial to the first — our conception of ourselves is largely a creation of our imagination.
Because it occurred more than once, my first thought was it must be a British variant. But I guess not.
Sincere question: do we know enough about human intelligence to support that last assertion?
So then you need to ask: Why did they use a deliberately faulty LLM? They could have easily used a mainstream LLM from the past 18 months and it probably would have been
less work to do so. But then they would not have that headline. The answers from the LLM would have likely made the participant's answers
more accurate, not 3x less accurate. But then they would not have this juicy headline.
I understand that many of us are dealing with a lot of confident slop and support the point that we shouldn't uncritically accept LLM output. But the study is flawed and does not support this headline, or at least does not support it in the sense of how most of us would understand the term "AI advice".