torben-friis

This feels somewhere between an Onion article and one of those vintage ads for giving children cocaine.

>Giving control over it to foreign entities means providing population wide manipulative power to foreign entities with adversarial intentions.

Alternatively, this blatant use of any tool available to influence non enemy states is disgusting, and forces everyone to a "everyone loses" scenario. Shifting the focus to an insufficiently defended victim removes the focus from the nature of the aggression.

And build their own payment processor and universal social media platform to link it in I assume?

This is one area where we've proved to be fully unable to rise to the occasion.

The internet age opened a million of possibilities to improve education: improved visual explanations, scalable access to the world's best educators, lowered friction to access students to work with, replayable lessons...

We mostly just kept the old model and placed an addictive device in front of children.

My point is not ability to do the sport, is that you're taking mental diseases as different from "physical".

The brain is harder for us to understand than a femur, but that doesnt warrant dismissing its malfunctions. Exercise, good sleep and similar stuff is healthy for everyone, but suggesting healing OCD with that is just as ascientifical as suggesting to tough it out for a broken bone.

Would you recommend the same to fix a person's a broken leg or eyesight problem?

Ah yes, fair addition there: The language is not assumed to be set in stone forever, but "guided" by certain academic authorities, that try to strike a balance between the system representing the reality of the spoken language and rules being kept standard. We get dictionary patch notes, so to speak.

The Real Academia Española does this job in the case of Spain, and there's an equivalent in each Spanish speaking country, with all belonging to a larger entity.

>Spain: "autillo" but last time I posted it, anthk said it's more complicated

Yup, diminutives are very regional here, one of the easier ways to pinpoint someone's origin: iño is common in the northwest due to influence of Portuguese, -ete in the northeast as an influence of French and Catalan, etc.

Here's an idea: Targeted ads against workers of companies who buy digital ads. Drown them in content with influencers showing that digital ads have awful returns, and frankly, only people with small genitals decide to buy campaigns.

Using Spanish as an example:

People learn a deterministic way to sound a word at school, same for everyone. The very fact of having that as part of education tends to stabilise the language to a degree: I can read 16 century poems and stuff sounds the same and rhymes perfectly.

Most local variations and accents will deviate in semi standard ways: For example, southern spaniards will usually use the same sound for S and C (which in Spain's Spanish is the famous 'lispy s' sound). So in general people are aware of what is part of the standard and what is a local characteristic.

Our educative system makes a point of those variations explicitly not being 'wrong', but sometimes in practice there are ideological debates about this stuff: For example, people might self police in media by adapting to the standard, which in turn draws criticism for "reneging of their identity").

That's actually great to hear, as my first reaction to the click wheel was "man I wonder if I can still get one of these".

Somehow, with all the world's music a tap away I listen to far fewer albums now. I loved preparing my mp3 players, like packing a bag for a trip.

If the current frontier allows for this, we can probably expect alternative models to reach the same spot in a matter of months as well. The cat's out of the bag, for better of worse.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here, sorry.

Why not keep that internal version as a dev branch separate from main? I can see the appeal of keeping things out of master/main for a while, but not why you would keep that part of development hidden.

But most importantly, why let out the binary and not the source? presumably if something is not ready for public use, the artifact being out is worst of both worlds - unready code is out and the public can't check what it does.

Not trying to argue mind you, but if this was not a deliberate attempt to hide the binary's behavior I think I'm missing the alternative upsides that justify that flow.

>You can disagree with the tradeoff, but if you don't acknowledge it you're just doing propaganda.

There is a third position beside "I agree/disagree with the tradeoff", which is "I don't consider the tradeoff as stated truthful and refuse to frame the conversation that way".

Every closing of rights comes with a legitimate-sounding reason. Protect the children, etc. Most activist have been through this process enough times to see the play coming a mile away.

It is also surprising to see, on a place called hacker news, people defending closed systems and removal of agency from end users by giant corporations.

After setting up a nas + sonarr setup, it's amazing how much my tv usage went down, simply due to having to actually choose what to view before it appears on my tv.

And it's also apparent how little content is currently worth a conscious watch. Every year or so I make a quick check for what great things appeared in the period, and not much has popped up.

It's always the feeds themselves that get you.

This idea of "here's the beta, I'll release the code in a few weeks" sounds counter intuitive to me. is it normal in open source? Any reason for it?

>The games you buy are still yours.

They're not yours. Can you resell and recoup? Nope, digital licenses.

Can you buy a 2k computer and play them? You can't or won't, that's the whole reason you're using this system instead.

So you effectively have 60 bucks per game as a moat to hold you in while they boil the water.

Not present in the math is that the cloud gaming service is able (and likely) to raise prices substantially, worsen the service or simply disappear.

One of the silver linings of a subscription model is that you're able to stop paying and move when it's no longer interesting, here you're asked to invest in a platform that can be taken from you.

It feels very existentialist to me (no meaning, indiferent universe, yadda yadda). You can almost feel it sipping wine between phrases. And Mistral itself is french, hence the joke.

>Would love to hear from someone who has experienced both how they compare.

I have. In terms of a bug-free experience, nintendo games and the main cinematic sony games (including also last of us 2 and the like) feel equally good.

The surprising thing about open world zeldas is that they allow a lot of physics tinkering. Keeping a story based, relatively on rails game stable is far easier than an open world sandbox. TotK feels like it should be a skyrim-like bug ridden experience but it isn't.

Also nintendo games tend to feel very satisfying, call it good UX if that makes sense. Animations, sounds, they do really know how to produce a sense of wonder.

That said I hate the hardware, I own a switch and yet I play on a steamdeck. The screen's not that good, controls are awkward, the sticks start drifting as soon as you blink...

Somewhere, French devs are smiling proudly.

I wonder, why 16.5? (That would be 2023's versión).

Not to detract from how awesome this is, just curious.

I think "I want to do stuff to hardware I own", without potential for remote anything, is probably a much easier sell.

>We believe this is part of a series of attacks recently targeting platform companies with the aim of compromising AI inference providers.

Is that an accusation? As in, major AI players taking out competitors ?

I suspect they're mostly for managers and entrepreneurs. It's always "set up meetings, write emails, check if someone calls me on slack".

New to Google?

the point is not lack of access to physical space, as much as that iteration fundamentally only gains speed by staying 'inside a mind', the moment you interact with the world you're bottlenecked.

Like, you can make the AI think super hard about what's the phrase that will convince your boss to give you a raise, but eventually you have to try a phrase and wait for their answer to have any idea whether the result was good or not. Without that, you don't know if you're improving the shot or just hallucinating aimlessly for hours.

Then, the speed of improvement is only as fast as the speed of iteration. The robot can learn to walk from falling, but it can't fall any faster than a real human, so it can't learn at 1M falls/second.

>The answer is simple: yes, I do think Ruby on Rails or frameworks in general still make sense. For the same reasons they always have: providing structure, not reinventing the wheel, security updates, free performance improvements and new features on updates to name a few benefits.

I think the author pulls a bit of a bait and switch arguing for 'frameworks in general' rather than ruby or rails themselves.

The 'rust rewrite' approach is a non starter strawman, mostly because if you have a running company or project there's probably a shitton of dev experience you're inmediately burning, you introduce a ton of risk, etc.

But for new projects, I think the ruby (and rails) tradeoffs are looking a lot worse than 5 years ago. Placing developer experience at the forefront, arguably at the cost of other stuff, looks a lot worse as manual coding disappears. And conversely, automatic guarantees (type checking, etc) start looking a lot better when you don't need to manually add boilerplate.

That's what I was missing yeah. I always took the bleaching of corals in media as a visible 'canary in the mine' situation, never knew they were so central to marine life.

>“Every additional fraction of a degree and additional year of warming above 1.5°C raises the risk of irreversible changes including in ice sheets, permafrost carbon, ocean circulation and coral systems, along with devastating human impacts,” the report states.

The mention to coral systems, from an ignorant perspective, seems weirdly specific to me. Kinda like "civilization will collapse and the price of sweaters will go up".

Does their disappearance have indirect consequences I'm not aware of?

Apologies for opening the discussion with a half related topic, since I haven't finished the article yet, but... Damn, that is one beautiful website.

Edit: Back after reading. I think I have a point about the simulation section. It compares the difference in decoherence introduced in the system by clankers and human devs as if those were different groups.

I suspect if we consider AI a human performance multiplier, we explain easily how supercharging a dysfunctional process just makes it go sideways faster. There are organizational experiments to try there.

For example, what if you only supercharge a section of the company tasked with maintaining coherence?

A common organizational problem is that the people who know and care about the system itself are outnumbered by the rest (juniors, people new to the system, managers rushing jobs, people who want to mark things as done ASAP tactically, etc). This imbalance will multiply when code is mass produced and reviews are dismissed. We're all seeing the senior burnout and cynical YOLOing occurring everywhere.

AI offers a way to rebalance this dynamic, though. You can effectively add multipliers to arbitrary human workers, and get a system that tends to low complexity by design.

You don't have to renounce to speed either. The junior dev will be faster not by being AI-enabled, but by working in an adaptable, understandable system.