I like this construction, but I don’t think you take it far enough.
If you have a multi dimensional space, and you are trying to compute which points lie “inside” some boundary, there are large areas that will be bounded by some dimensions but not others. This is interesting because it means if you have a section bounded by dimensions A, B, and C but not D, you could still place a point in D, and doing so then changes your overall bounds.
I think this is how much of human knowledge has progressed (maybe all non-observational knowledge). We make observations that create points, and then we derive points within the created space, and that changes the derivable space, and we derive more points.
I don’t see why AI could do the same (other than technical limitations related to learning and memory).
Of course it is technically possible, but doing so would violate the spec.
> The 404 (Not Found) status code indicates that the origin server did not find a current representation for the target resource or is not willing to disclose that one exists.
In the above case, the server _is_ returning a representation.
I wonder if a successful, albeit slower, approach would be to walk the git commit history in lockstep, applying the behavioral intent behind each commit. If they did this, I would be interested in knowing if they were able to skip certain bug fix commits because the Rust implementation sidestepped the problem.
For a relatively small set of dimensions this is true. But the more abstractions the code needs to accommodate, the trickier and more prone to leaky abstractions it becomes. Removing one axis of complexity can be incredibly helpful.
The Snopes article is useful. For those who don’t want to read it, here is what Grossman says about that quotation:
> That clip took my entire, full day presentation, and took it completely out of context.
-They left out the part where I say that this is a normal biological, hormonal backlash from fight-or-flight (sympathetic nervous system arousal) to feed-and-breed (parasympathetic nervous system arousal) that can happen to anyone in a traumatic event.
-They left out the part where I say that there is nothing wrong if it doesn’t happen, and absolutely nothing wrong if it does happen.
-They left out the part where I say it happens to fire, EMS and even victims of violent crime.
-They left out where I say that it scares the hell out of people.
-They left out where I talk about it (and remember it is common in survivors of violent crime), as kind of a beautiful affirmation of life in the face of death; a grasping for closeness and intimate reassurance in the face of tragedy.
This is absolutely true for many topics. There is a threshold of expertise where opinion that does not meet that threshold has no value.
There is also a large gray area where there is sufficient expertise such that the opinion might have value. And then there is some point quite bit after that where someone has sufficient expertise such that it is very important to take what they say on the subject seriously.
I occupy the first two regions in almost all areas, possibly all.
High school students occupy the first area almost exclusively.
What can you do? I mentioned the use of AI on another thread, asking essentially the same question. The comment was flagged, presumably as off topic. Fair enough, I guess. But about 80% (maybe more) of posted blogs etc that I see on HN now have very obvious signs of AI. Comments do too. I hate it. If I want to see what Claude thinks I can ask it.
HN is becoming close to unusable, and this isn’t like the previous times where people say it’s like reddit or something. It is inundated with bot spam, it just happens the bot spam is sufficiently engaging and well-written that it is really hard to address.
No they don’t. Do you really believe that? Maybe on certain niche issues the opinions of a HS student are useful, but mostly they are still growing into some understanding that can contribute in a meaningful way. Which means mostly their opinions are dumb and useless.
Imagine, if you would, that the strict libertarians had much more influence in shaping the country. So much so that the roads are toll roads, the parks require a fee, and almost no libraries exist because the ROI just isn’t there.
Furthermore, there is no anti-trust legislation, and as a result, there are only a few companies that control all meeting places: the parks, the coffee shops, the roads, the pubs. And they have set up constant monitoring technology.
If you want to set up a protest on a street corner, it better align with the corporation’s views, or they will ban your access to the roads. If you want to talk with friends at the pub, don’t say anything out of line or you’re not coming back. Events can take place in parks, but make sure you only discuss the weather.
Of course, this is fine: you can always just meet at your own home and say what you think, because that is your own property.
…
I realize the analogy is overwrought, but there just doesn’t exist an online equivalent of a public space, and ideological enforcement is trivial. Comparing it to the rules we have for physical spaces mean we need to imagine what those physical spaces would be like if they operated like online spaces, and frankly the result is dystopian (in my opinion).
Surely the solution isn’t just to dismiss it as a non-problem? Or, I suppose, to stop looking for a solution because… solutions so far considered have negative side effects, which feels (practically speaking) the same to me.
Having been in both roles, I believe it is important that each side of the “1” give the other a little grace.
When you are going from “1” to stable, there is some breathing room because you have a 1 that works, mostly. Sort of. Dealing with it may be a slow slog of sordid substitutions, but the pressure is different.
Going from 0 to 1 may involve working 80+ hour weeks with little sleep and enormous stress. It may mean meeting deadlines that make or break the product in a mad rush to fulfill a contract that saves or dooms the company. It may mean taking minutes to decide designs when days or months of consideration would have been more appropriate. And it may mean getting a lot of things wrong, but hopefully not so wrong that a version 2 is impossible.
As a final note: often v1 has substantial problems, that’s true. But sometimes it’s actually not that bad, and v2 fails because it was trying to shove the tech de jure (k8s cough cough) where it wasn’t needed so someone could get that shiny architect promotion.
I would be willing to bet money they used AI to scrape and curate the comments. The justifications have that feeling of knowledge the sentiment is negative coupled with a lack of understanding about its accuracy.
I would characterize a lot of the behavior of politicians as despicable, antisocial, and un-American.
The short answer to your question is that the Democratic establishment in general and Harris in particular repeatedly lied throughout the Biden administration, culminating in the bald-faced lie that Joe Biden was completely competent. This was done with the attitude of “well what are you going to do? Vote for the other team? Don’t be ridiculous.” There were so, so many other things throughout the Biden administration, it felt (feels) like a race to the bottom.
So Trump, who is notorious for lying, won. To be fair to Republicans, Trumps lies are more like crazy exaggerations sprinkled with outright bullshit which somehow is more palatable than being gaslit.
If the defense of the Democrats is “Well look at how bad Trump is!” it should at least be acknowledged that is one of the worst defenses possible. And in general, if my options are to be stabbed by person A twice, or by person B once but person B expects me to be grateful, I might just go with person A.
The end result is we will keep toggling between the two parties until one of them decides to run using sane people. I sincerely hope that will be the Democrats this year.
Sort of a meta-observation, but consistently folks on the left have that take and then are confused when they lose.
“If only all those idiots on the right and in the center could see they should vote for the bumbling but well-intentioned candidate over the obvious liars and thieves” is an explanation that feels good to tell yourself, but also incredibly patronizing and prevents actually understanding why people vote the way they do.
I find the arrogance of the left pretty abhorrent. I also despise aspects of the right, but boy does the left rub me the wrong way.