Are people who are very very securely attached to their parents happy later in life, or is there a ceiling? The terminology invites certain conclusions here.
Maybe the whole attention thing is more a matter of quality, rather than quantity
> Ukraine has a hugely inventive and effective drone industry because it has to work.
Well yes, that and the fact that cheap drone guerilla tactics have fairly recently become a technological possibility. Remember that Ukraine is actually a bit late to the party here, with Hezbollah and ISIS having used cheap drones with cameras and/or explosives tied to them years before Ukraine or Russia did. The asymmetry in cost between those cheap drones and the existing "more hightech = more better" militaries were (and are!) used to was already established. That a party such as Ukraine faced with a more advanced and much larger opponent would lean towards such an approach makes a lot of sense. Ukraine did not (and does not really) have significant amounts of the traditional stuff.
Now given that they chose that path, they have been very effective recently, but note that the tethered fiber-optic drones were a Russian invention. So even that deeply corrupt, large dinosaur of an institution innovated significantly. It is also important to note that a significant part of the recent successes of Ukraine are due to them having Starlink access and Russia no longer having it.
I'm not saying the sheer will to survive or the inventive organisation of the Ukranians did nothing (far from it), but I do think it is a mistake to think that their success should only be viewed through that lens.
"Hyperinflation is a very high and typically accelerating inflation."
"Mudflation is a term for the type of inflation found in MUDs (Multi User Dungeon) games. MMORPGs, these days. It's caused by fluctuations in the game economy, caused by player exploits or poorly designed patches. Mudflation almost always kicks in after a major patch or an expansion, when new, better quality items are added to the game economy. These generally have the effect of greatly lowering the value of all pre-existing items."
2.
> Dismissing videogame economies as "toy universes" that don't matter doesn't help science.
Straw man. I never said they did not matter, nor did I say that research of them isn't useful. I said that research is severely limited due to the lack of complexity and you have provided nothing to disprove that.
I would argue that your way of communicating about this is actually a bit of evidence that this kind of research is probably going to be detrimental to policy making: Overestimating the value and use of such research is exactly the same thing that happens with traditional macroeconomic research, with policy makers and the general public treating the theories and hypotheses like laws of nature.
I think this might make a lot of sense in modern warfare scenarios: We're seeing in Ukraine that being able to produce weapons such as drones in very small production facilities using 3D printers and 'simple' technology makes it very hard for an adversary to shut down said production.
The more components can be produced in such a way, the better. Chips currently are quite an exception to that.
50% is very generous. In the video it isn't even consistently above his body half the time. It is also constantly a good 80cm above him, so even a slight bit of side wind makes it fully useless to keep you dry.
Any wind speed above 20m/s is also going to just blow it straight out of the air or at best heavily reduce flight time.
And then there is the little issue with having a mini lawn mower constantly above your head: loud and dangerous.
Having said that, we can still applaud the creator for bringing their idea to life.
To be fair, macroeconomics can hardly be called science, though. It is incredibly hard to falsify a lot of the theories given the lack of possibilities for experimentation. It is far closer to philosophy than to any of the even remotely hard sciences.
Nothing to do with ideology, but with the nature of the field. Take epidemiological research in the areas of food and medicine: incredibly hard and expensive to get right and even then with often tenuous results. Now try doing that with ridiculously heterogeneous nations influenced by potentially almost everything on the planet.
It's a small miracle that economists manage to get some useful insights out of the data, but we should definitely be aware of how weakly most of them are supported (don't start talking about "error bars" with economists).
The man in the room is comparable to a human hand, and the magic rulebook to a human brain.
This in the sense that we can easily retain human "understanding" by stripping away almost all parts of the human body or replacing them with fairly trivially made replacements, except for the brain.
In the Chinese Room the equivalent is the magic rulebook: We have no idea how to construct/replace it, yet people somehow handwave that away whilst simultaneously confidently asserting it does not understand anything.
I assume that they also have mechanisms to check that the content itself is legal to broadcast. Checking the loudness and rejecting based on them in that process should be trivial.
> Libertarians can just flip it round and say how do socialists solve the free rider problem?
This is a fallacy (tu quoque/whataboutism). You're changing the subject to distract from the fundamental problem in libertarianism and implying that some other strawman is just as bad.
Without solving the fundamental problem, libertarianism will never work for anything but toy societies.
> Pre-LLM, authors generally had intention behind their words.
I think this is at least in part a combination of rosy retrospection and attentional bias: A lot of human writing was always trash. Absolute dogshit with regard to the quality of writing, but there was no "AI slop" label to attach to it. How would you, pre-LLMs, have placed a comment on the writing style if a post was badly written? From what I've seen it would be a "this is marketing/SEO-speak" or some similar comment, deriding the author for being uninformed or of ill intent.
We've now become so allergic to AI slop that anything that even smells like it triggers almost immediate disgust and attachment of that label to the content (even if it is the same old human written trash).
I guess LLM-assisted posts do change the dynamic a bit: the intent is more often benign with a desire to write something good, but the skill to do so lacking. If we limit the "pre-LLM authors" to people with good intent writing about stuff relevant to a HackerNews audience, you're probably right. Many more bad writers are now creating the same ostensibly fancy articles, decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio we were used.
> I see this over and over again on HN: pick the weakest sentence, attack it, proclaim the article is rubbish, and move on. Why?
It's to heuristically filter content on quality to optimize information consumption, i.e. concluding early: "This is probably not going to be worth my time, because this author seems to make fairly trivial easily avoidable mistakes (or something similar)". I appreciate the signal from other people here, even if it is not always accurate.
There is a lot of content to filter through nowadays.
Look at the code for the war games. It is an absolutely trivial and incredibly unrealistic handwritten set of rules that determine power. See the function `calculate_relative_fighting_power` for instance.
This is about as close to a realistic simulation of war as tic tac toe with nukes thrown into it.
Much of such issue tracking systems may be better in the repo in the first place. A Jira issue could just be a markdown file committed in the repo. A code review could just be commits of inline remarks/comments.
Maybe there is some value to slapping on a web interface on top of that data for ease of use, but as to where the data lives I'm leaning towards putting everything in repo.
JS frameworks were invented to deal with clunkiness of Vanilla Javascript and got bloated to include everything and the kitchen sink. All of a sudden they're 'ecosystems'.
Modern JS + Web components with the light layer of Lit on top solve at least 80% of the issues there were and are with just plain JS. Close to actual web standards and thus play nice with almost everything. By design they fit into a far more modular approach than React or Vue or Svelte.
Agreed. The amount of effectively annotated (possibly very sensitive) data that users are voluntarily shoving across the line seems worth losing some money over. I imagine that data is also not exactly safe from the Chinese government.
> Learning from others at a small scale is not only socially acceptable, but is the foundation of how advancement works.
Exactly, if anything, the logic (a bit bad -> really bad) shows that one person learning from one thing is far inferior to one person learning from every thing (a bit good -> really good).
Are people who are very very securely attached to their parents happy later in life, or is there a ceiling? The terminology invites certain conclusions here.
Maybe the whole attention thing is more a matter of quality, rather than quantity