xenocratus

It's just how the world works, for now. Maybe (and that's a big maybe) you can change it. But given the Lindy effect I wouldn't bet on it.

No one stops you from doing mathematics for the romance of it, just as no one stops you from growing your own tomatoes. But if you want to grow tomatoes and make your living that way, it seems unlikely you'll make it if you go at it the same way people did 500 years ago.

Put another way - if you want your hobby to support you financially, it has to offer enough value for others, even if that value is "I enjoy knowing someone is doing this, without me benefiting directly". Simple as. Otherwise, accept it's just a hobby.

Something that I was mulling on just the other day. As I grow in my career, on a day to day basis I feel like I'm failing or doing things badly. Maybe because I have no comparison frame for it, because of the growth. Maybe because it's never possible, while you're in the thick of a project, to provide that post-hoc history. The open-endedness feels weird compared with clear causality.

Or maybe because I'm growing beyond my limit of capability. Time will tell.

Can you remind me why Yvette Cooper [1], who's been trained as an Economist, is Secretary for Health and Social Care, after being Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary?

Literally the first name I clicked on from the UK government.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvette_Cooper

Are there cases or jurisdictions where the outcome is not binary (guilty, not guilty), but has three options: innocent, indeterminate, guilty? With "innocent" leading to some fine, penalty, or even worse, for the prosecution team. That would obviously imply the option for plea deals both ways, and would give the prosecutors a more interesting incentive structure :)

"<something> is not useful for me or my use-cases, therefore it is harmful and should not be tolerated" - many such cases.

The whole article rests on this: "It is a building block of extremely restrictive DRM systems, as it allows a third party to police what the user can or can't run on a device that is (at least supposed to be) theirs."

Except remote attestation is obviously not implemented only for consumer computing platforms, e.g., confidential computing

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50085408

I might do, need to find some time to find a good balance between security and usability by others. It's currently running on the public web, so I had to have some funky security to prevent bots from triggering it and using my money for TTS :)

But worth noting that it took me a few hours to make, and it's all vibecoded, meaning the code is likely not that nice, and that you could probably replicate it fairly easily just from my description above.

If I make it OS I'll share it on Show HN.

I did something very similar to this, for myself, but which takes a web page for an article, cleans up the text to preserve the article only, and converts it using TTS, then adds it to a cloud bucket with an RSS stream, and I use that RSS link as a podcast in Apple Podcast.

No, thanks. Depending on the type of information being transferred and just how uncertain the recipient's knowledge is, I may or may not need to add some amount of information to whatever I have to share. That information would be extra context you may need to have, on top of what new thing I am trying to explain. If I know I'm talking with someone who's all caught up, great, no need for context setting. Though even in those cases, there might be some terminology I want to define, or to provide a list of acronyms or whatever. That is boilerplate work, but is at least useful, if not needed. I know people tend to view this sort of comms as "technical" - they shouldn't be. So much misunderstanding happens because people are just not aligned on their shared context or medium. Of course, AI is not fully reliable to generate that context, you as a writer need to put in the work to review and align the result with your own understanding, or drive it thoroughly before.

All that being said, I acknowledge that people (me included) love to be sloppy in their comms (with or without AI) and then blame others for misunderstanding. It's also unlikely we'll change soon. What can you do.

Demis Hassabis [1], co-founder of DeepMind

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demis_Hassabis

... the page never argues that AI is bad or not useful broadly. Not sure if this getting commented again and again is because people are just that bad at understanding that context matters. Not everything has to be evil / slop or pure / virtuous, regardless of context.

You write your reply and ask the AI to fix the spelling / grammar for you. It's really not the same thing

> This is a crazy thing to notice after having been alive so many years — that your existence itself is so much to bear.

Alternative interpretation: my existence is not about sitting there, getting mouldy on the sofa. It never crosses my mind that I should feel unrest because I can't / don't want to just sit there and do nothing, nor does it feel like a revelation to think about it. Maybe it also says something about you if this is something you worry about on some deep level.

Because we have a limited amount of time and energy and other things might be more valuable to us. tbh, even this list kind of leans toward improving other measures as a means of increasing happiness. You could just write the article as "things to improve in your life", and then at the end go "oh yeah, and you'll probably be a bit happier too".

I found paxys' comment fun, so you're right!

Building a small cloud service that I've been thinking of for a while, to take the articles I don't have time to read but find interesting in principle, and convert them to audio via TTS. Just filled a short flight with some articles from the backlog, now I need to do some UI improvements, and then maybe a similar flow for academic papers too. :)

There is arguing, and then there is arguing. The whole post discusses whether to argue or not, without touching on the fairly important (imho) topic of how to argue and how not to argue.

Vast majority of people probably hate to argue with someone who's a jerk during said argument, regardless of their correctness.

I've also found myself arguing against someone whose point I actually support, but who is arguing in a non-sensical way, or with bad arguments for said point. Because I don't want that point to be dragged down by easy-to-defeat arguments, even if I then have to fight both sides.

But anyway: how you argue matters, put some effort into it, and don't assume that being right means you're doing a good job.

They'd have you know they actually cared a bit too much about said compliance itself.

Quite enlightening, I propose one of us writes a novel about it, about how Napoleon just precipitated what was already there, enabled of course by those around him. It should show the impact it had on everyone involved. Oh, and let's make it from a Russian perspective, showing a few intertwined families and the hardship the wars brings to them. Sounds like a great read! Oh, yeah, and make it like 1000 pages long.

I mostly stopped daydreaming at some point in my 20s too, after a fairly intense daydreaming life until then. Oh, and no kids yet :) so it could just be "life"

An ambiguous metric that's been (ab)used quite a lot by human fundamentalists to try to draw a line between what we can do and what machines can do, in order to feel better about themselves.

Or were you looking for a different definition?

I took the "because of course" to be about having a word for everything - a stereotypical idea about the German language.

Let me rephrase that for you: red is for people who live in this world and accept it, blue is for people with white knight syndrome.

OR. Red is for people who understand statistics, blue is for people who like to gamble.

Yes, I'm sure milk is all people steal. And I'm sure it's better for it to be stolen than given to food banks and charities.

F off

> plus, if you see somebody stealing food, no, you didn't

Don't tell me, in your view the cost of shoplifting is begrudgingly covered by those evil rich people who own everything, right? It's not passed down to customers, and therefore affects those who obey rules, and especially those who are in a precarious financial situation to begin with, right?

> I just don't find these arguments convincing after watching my friend spend cumulative hours upon hours jumping between pirate streaming services trying to find a stable feed for every game.

Then you haven't been through enough cycles of subscribing to a service, using it for a while, then wanting to cancel and realising that the only way to do so is through some baroque direct interaction with someone whose job it is to stop you from doing so, instead of it just being a single "cancel" button. I still pay for things, but I 100% understand why some are unwilling to have to both pay, and then put in the same amount of effort they'd put otherwise, just to stop paying.

Not to mention the bundling. For example, if I only want to watch climbing competitions in the UK, the only legal way is through a £34 per month subscription to a service that offers every sport under the sun. Even though climbing-wise you might have 4 events that month (sometimes fewer). So yeah, f whoever devised the model :)

> Now that you can just pay 10-20 euro for a streaming service

Now that you can just pay 10-20 euros for each of 124293507239841524352 services, one of which _might_ show what you want...

Fixed it for you.

> It's just a box of numbers, really cool numbers, with really cool math, that can do really cool things, but still just numbers.

https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.s...