mionhe

Amen

I think the issue there is that, in the absence of the AI poster, people will still dislike the "worse" poster.

Since this is idealogical, a business owner's choices are: * use AI and some people hate it on principle, don't use AI and don't pay enough and some people hate it because it looks cheap, don't use Ai and pay a bunch more and people don't hate it...maybe, depending on style and skill of the artist.

As a business owner, it's not an encouraging situation.

Can you elaborate a little?

I've been unable to think of any in light of what was going on at the time and his previous messaging.

Can you share some interpretations you've come up with that fit those criteria?

I think this short exchange highlights the problem really well.

Most people are uninterested in paying for those services, in part because the internet has trained them that information is free and in part because of fairly extreme polarization in opinions that seems to be everywhere.

Arguing that people should pay for the information they consume now is well and good, but that information was something the news companies were giving away for free not that many years ago, reinforcing the idea that information should be free.

If there going to make money long term, they're going to have to find a new way to monetize. People are actively blocking the ads and don't want to pay for yet another subscription to content they don't access that often.

Hmm. It seems that communism (at least at the level of the dictator) is more suited to your message:

When you can use force to take anything and steal money without practical limits, gaining access to more and more capital at any and all costs, even at the cost of everybody else's life and freedom and rights, is the natural result.

A person expressing wonder at a surprising situation does not require shaming.

And yes, I think when a person finds themselves in a situation like this they should be examining their life choices.

I don't know why it's on hn though.

This is an odd statement, and I can't figure out what you're trying to say.

What are you actually suggesting here?

I work in this field, and I've never seen a device that isn't dead simple be able to clear the FDA for $200k. I've definitely never seen a medical device with software anywhere near this.

The reason people don't switch to medical devices is because even a fairly simple device without software or electronics can still take between $750k and $1.2M to develop and clear the FDA. Adding software is a cost & time multiplier.

The slash is read as "OR" in this case.

As in: Unix-like OR POSIX-compliant

In that light, it's probably fine to not nitpick over certifications here.

Meta: down votes here prove no such thing. If you are downvoted it's because you read the article that had nothing to do with politics, the comment on a vision of heaven and hell that had nothing to do with politics, and then you made it about something that is very politicized in the US.

Both the article and comment you commented on eschewed a trite political message and tried to say something real and human.

> "... won't work well on mobile."

You're missing the part in Christianity where he comes again, this time as triumphant victor who overcame all things to save the human family.

"> Dennis"

I assumed this was referring to a simple seated position, but I was incorrect. He had people in some odd poses for meditation. Thank you for posting the source.

More accurately, why WebKit was forked from khtml by Apple.

Well, the author of the article found several people sharing experiences that they heard from other people that seem to give credence to that view.

Hard to know at this point if the problem is with specific judges, with the way the law is written, or if the presentation of these experiences are made to seem more numerous by the way the article presents the story. It also didn't cover instances of abuse coming from mothers, so there's at least a little bias in the story.

When we say "everyone in science", I think the part that people find scary is that it's hard to tell who is in science versus who is in 'science'.

Or in other words, it's hard to tell from the outside who really believes what you're stating and who believes it until it's inconvenient, or until it clashes with their personal ideology.

I'm not clear on what the second paragraph is adding to your example in the first.

Hiring doesn't work like that. It's not like you glance at resumes then hire someone because what the paper says matches your job description. You spend a lot of time, if you're doing it right. Some resumes have everything you want, but aren't honest. Some resumes don't have everything, but they're pretty close, and worth the conversation. Some people seem perfect on paper but once you talk with them you realize (for whatever reason) that they don't fit. Even just a few applicants can take many hours of work before you can pick the one that fits best what you're looking for.

If you're a team of 5, handling 1,200 resumes, how much money are you expected to invest in this process? Does everyone take a week off billable work so you can find someone? Can you afford that? With only a team of 5, probably not.

We all want to feel like we're being treated well, but scolding someone because they were overwhelmed by the massive amount of adversarial spam they received for their job posting is a failure to put yourself in their shoes. Let's all be better people, here.

> Can't wait to go to jail for texting a meme to the group chat.

For a second I thought that was a great hypothetical example, then I remembered that's a thing that actually happens now in the UK and got a little sad instead.

If capitalists can't solve problems, who do you suggest can?

And yet the founding fathers made it pretty clear that they were all for every able-bodied man having guns, including private citizens owning artillery.

The relative lethality of a particular style of rifle doesn't seem to matter. Better guns than muskets were available at the time, and they didn't seem to think it necessary to limit that amendment.

I don't think your opinions about the history and purpose of the second amendment holds water.

"Wilder times" is an interesting description of the early days of the country. When I look around at the violence the last several years (mass rioting, looting, uptick in murder pretty much everywhere, etc. etc.), I feel like that description applies pretty well to our times as well.

That being the case, I would say their opinions and beliefs are pretty important to the current national climate.

Which reasons are you referring to? I've never heard this comparison between masking during two pandemics 100+ years apart.

>[...]about one school shooting or mass shooting every two days proves that at least one member of the species isn't uniformly ready to have firearms.

I often see comments online descending into the argument about firearms. Besides the potential number of people hurt/killed, what's the difference between someone walking into a school with a gun versus one walking into a school with a knife? Or a sharpened spear (from other comments in the thread)?

In many ways, I think a knife could be worse. You can hurt/kill a lot of people very quietly with a knife, leaving most of the school none the wiser. They're easier to conceal, easier to make from non-metallic substances (and thus can be easier to sneak past metal detectors.) I imagine people would be a lot less concerned about a knife collection than a gun collection, etc etc.

I don't disagree with your comment about someone not being ready for a firearm. However, I think that the argument that we're not recognizing the dangers of "gun free" zones as potential targets (by at least one statistic, 94% of mass shootings in the US happen in a "gun free" zone) and mitigating that danger in a meaningful way actually supports your point about syncophantic AIs better.

Is there a place where it isn't dead in the world? It seems to be the attitude everywhere nowadays.

Doxing is more than exposure. It's exposing someone's real world identity online, often with the intent to harm them. It's the harming portion that I think most people are objecting to. While I doubt most of us have enough online notoriety for us to be targeted in this kind of attack, the idea is still very uncomfortable personally.