Adraghast

To delegitimize media organizations the US State Department doesn’t like?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monster

Hope this helps!

What’s it going to take to get Hacker News commenters to stop perpetuating the myth that trademark holders are required to be litigious assholes if they don’t want their trademarks to lapse?

The pitch is that businesses can reduce parking congestion (is there a dollar value you can pin to this?) by paying you to act as a personal scooter consultant for their employees?

During research did you come across any mass-market applications of this sort of concierge service? It sounds very niche/upscale. I can’t think of any purchase I’ve made where I could have even found someone to hold my hand through it that wasn’t the person making the sale. The closest analogue I can think of is a travel agency.

Not sure how seriously to take that

I can help with that: not seriously at all. Calling someone a nerd has been a thing for the better part of a century. How long has TikTok been around?

The average intelligent viewer will be left confused and intimidated

I’m not qualified to know if your post is better or worse than Netflix’s documentary, Bill, but this is an egregious example of a pot calling a kettle black.

Can you elaborate? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.

Mozilla _has_ to look for new avenues, because the current ones (Firefox, Thunderbird) will not ever make money on their own.

The implicit assumption here seems to be that Mozilla needs to exist and if Firefox can’t sustain that existence they need to pivot to something that will. Why? So Google can keep using them as a fig leaf for their browser monopoly? So Mitchell Baker can keep collecting $3 million per year? Because the blind squirrel might find a nut someday?

Maybe there’s a point where the remaining employees should just pack it up.

How do you feel about NFTs

Further devaluation of our holistic humanity. We already define ourselves largely by the functions we perform in society, but at least current class distinctions are still mostly social. Imagine how much worse it would be if people could literally be bred for certain functions. An engineer will always be a engineer because their traits were optimized for that. A ditch digger will always be a ditch digger because their parents couldn’t afford the engineer package at Build-A-Baby.

I can think of few worlds more dystopian than one where there’s a causal, quantifiable relationship between wealth and biological superiority.

I’m not very familiar with it. Why is that obvious?

For the record, I agree it was probably a joke, albeit one that reveals something true about how he and people like him view the world. But if the idea is that Musk personally supported the coup because the Morales government wouldn’t hand the rights to Bolivia’s lithium reserves over to US firms, Tesla not using batteries made with Bolivian lithium would be expected.

As opposed to an anti-mullahs, anti-Russia, and anti-Hezbollah outlet that would be a normal geopolitics website?

You live in a very particular bubble, friend.

Read the comments on this post alone. It affects morale. Morale affect productivity, no germaphobia required.

Agreed, but what’s the alternative though? Just going full Amish on them until they’re 18? 25? Look at all the Baby Boomers and older Gen X’ers that got on the Internet in the past ten years and instantly had their brains rotted despite decades of life experience. Should there be some kind of emotional intelligence test everyone has to pass to earn their internet license?

This is why I think that taking steps to keep kids off social media is delaying the inevitable. Just as there’s no safe age to start smoking, there’s no truly safe age to start using social media as it currently exists. So either we accept the negative aspects of these platforms’ existence, or we remediate them.

What if the dev in Boise and the dev in Seattle and the dev in Butte got together and agreed none of them would work for less than a certain salary?

This sounds like circular reasoning to me. “You can’t collect an SV-level salary working remotely from the Bay because the company could just hire someone from Nebraska, and the company won’t pay him an SV-level salary because he’s not located in the Bay.”

Why not?

The criteria was existence. It existed.

Could the internet exist in a way that makes the RIAA/MPAA/etc happy without DMCA? Maybe not. But there’s no reason to assume their happiness is a requirement, or even desirable.

Considering the open internet existed before DMCA did, I suspect “essential” is an exaggeration.

People should be taught to be nice to others, of course. The point is that LLMs are not “others”, they are inanimate tools. If I called a cashier a worthless piece of shit, that would be incredibly rude. If I said the same thing to Siri, it wouldn’t be, because it is not possible to be rude to software.

If my child were to say that to Siri though, I’d be concerned because, as you said, it could be highlighting something about the way they interact with the world. But I would still want it to respond to the command and leave the problem of my child’s bad manners to me. Unless there’s a major shift in our understanding of sentience, I consider teaching the delineation between humans, who are never unfeeling tools, and technology, which is always an unfeeling tool, equally as important as teaching mindfulness of one’s impact in the world. In fact, I don’t think you can actually understand the latter without understanding the former.

Most users just don’t consider that to be a worthwhile expense of their mental capacity.

Beyond that, I fundamentally don’t think people should be trained to be “nice” to technology. I don’t have to politely ask a hammer to pound in a nail and - the fact we’re talking about NLP notwithstanding — I shouldn’t have to politely ask Bing to provide me the results I’m looking for.

Also, I've tried 4 different podcast players and they're all terrible except for Spotify's.

You’re the first person I’ve heard with anything positive to say about their podcast UI, so I’m really curious what those four are.

Author went from Extinction Rebellion (deeply suspicious in its own right, but neither here nor there) to working for Michael Shellenberger, a lifelong PR flack for the nuclear and fossil fuel industries. Now is the public face of a “group” called Emergency Reactor — spend twenty seconds looking at its website and Twitter and it’s clear the entire purpose is to derail renewables — spun up by Daniel Aegerter, who through his private VC fund, Armada AG, is invested in a number of nuclear startups including Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Last Energy, and Oklo.

Don’t care

Quite the standard you’ve set there!

Because if they don't I won't sell them my labor.

I've retained employment for nearly two decades, and have retained the "privilege" of working remotely for nearly half of that. I'm not concerned.

Sounds like an excuse to me. Pretending to work in-office is only marginally more difficult than doing so remotely.

It’s not some solvable, technocratic equation, it’s a conflict between labor and management. I don’t look at it from my employers’ perspectives because I don’t care about their outcomes.