HackerLangs
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

qarl2

14 karmajoined 20 days ago
Hackernews is now censoring my main account (qarl) because, according to them, my writing sounds too much like AI and it makes people angry. I tried to explain this is a form of ad hominem, but then they got angry too and stopped talking to me.

I have created this new account so that I may continue to provide my legitimate (albeit unpopular) arguments and opinions.

comments

qarl2
·4 hours ago·discuss
Ah... is this just the difference between a constructive and non-constructive proof? Is that the distinction you're making?
qarl2
·6 hours ago·discuss
Right. I think I understand - this question was expected to produce a new theory and the clever solution avoided that.

Like I said below, I think this is a fantastic result. It discovered that this question really wasn't asking the right question. That's a determination that has eluded the humans examining the problem - and a real step forward - albeit not the hoped-for step.

No?
qarl2
·6 hours ago·discuss
Hmmm... seems to me that if you can find a solution without creating the desired explanation - then that's a problem with the original question - not the solution itself.

And discovering a bad question leads to the correct question. No?
qarl2
·6 hours ago·discuss
> However, it seems the proof is extremely concise so it seems that it is exploiting a clever trick that somehow all the experts missed.

Why is that a "however"? My reading is that it found a genuinely new solution that is both elegant and previously missed.

Seems like exactly the kind of result a human mathematician would aspire to.
qarl2
·yesterday·discuss
I really like the laws just passed in Oregon to protect regular folk from energy prices. From the sounds of it - energy prices will DECREASE for the average person.

https://www.opb.org/article/2026/07/07/oregon-data-center-ge...
qarl2
·yesterday·discuss
https://archive.is/ibBkO#selection-3939.0-3939.70
qarl2
·2 days ago·discuss
Is it? I've always felt that the idea is worth more than the implementation. Implementation is tedious and not really genius.

Regardless, I'm just happy to have these things at my disposal now. I don't need to be the one writing the code.

I don't need to make the wings to enjoy flying.
qarl2
·2 days ago·discuss
Yeah. :)

Since the advent of AI I have been delighted by the number of old project ideas I've been able to execute. There are just too many ideas to implement them all by yourself - but AIs don't seem to mind in the least.

It's a brave new world.
qarl2
·2 days ago·discuss
You should read the part of the article where the author compares his work to Stan.
qarl2
·3 days ago·discuss
Be warned - by using AI like this you've made yourself a lightning rod for the people who really really really dislike AI.
qarl2
·4 days ago·discuss
Yes. That's why I said "expectation".
qarl2
·4 days ago·discuss
It's just mathematical expectation.

Don't look at the simple probability - look at probability * value.
qarl2
·5 days ago·discuss
Hey.

Stop stalking me. It's creepy as fuck. Be better.
qarl2
·5 days ago·discuss
> Zuckerberg knows that threatening Wynn-Williams for standing in wooden silence on a stage makes him look like history's most guillotineable billionaire.
qarl2
·8 days ago·discuss
> I can’t tell if Zuckerberg is dimwitted or just evil.

I can.
qarl2
·14 days ago·discuss
It doesn't matter why. Many people choose to do it that way. And if you want them to use your software, you need to enable them.

But to answer your question directly - I suspect they simply don't care, and just take the easiest way.
qarl2
·14 days ago·discuss
Oh yes, I agree completely. But apparently Paul Graham does not - and his whim is law.
qarl2
·14 days ago·discuss
Ah. That's a shame... as there is no button or indicator for "mild".

Making the behavior for "I disagree" and "this is erroneous" the same seems like a problematic design.
qarl2
·14 days ago·discuss
Why am I being downvoted for stating my reasonable opinion?
qarl2
·15 days ago·discuss
> That does not mean "I used it via emailing it". There is no ambiguity - he was asked specifically about this.

On the contrary - I think the most reasonable interpretation of his words is that he did use it via emailing it. But like I said at the beginning, I could be wrong. It will be interesting to see what he says when he returns to the conversation.

> Once again, I reiterate, an agent processing email that rejects every single one passes the test that the OP created, but then it can't do anything useful either.

No one is contesting that point, only that it is applicable.