Karunamon

Wait a sec. Something which provides such an unambiguous quality of life upgrade by addressing one of the biggest health problems in the country, is only now available because of regulations?

Surely it's not that simple.

That assumes perfect accuracy. If a command is misheard then you probably need to correct whatever is now in the wrong state, and then definitely reissue the original command. If its text input then you have to do some select/correct dance. Both of these things take a lot of time.

Asking why a tech company whose only product of note is slowly dying, why they are spending money on unrelated advocacy, is entirely reasonable though?

All you have done is convict him conclusively of having an opinion while not liberal. Guilty as charged. I am unclear why that is such a problem.

Theres no such thing as unbiased, so lets set that impossible-to-meet standard aside.

Anytime Mozilla comes up here, the question comes up about supporting Firefox development without the pile of other stuff they do. There is no way to do so. Perhaps their lack of focus is a concern that crosses partisan lines, and ignoring those concerns simply because of tribalism is unwise?

Thats all well and good, but you said nothing of substance about the link. The fact you dislike his political stances tells us nothing.

Its strange to see so much moralizing in this thread about a device which only receives signals and can't harm another being unless maybe thrown hard enough.

Most speed limits are artificially low to the point where slavish adherence makes them the safety issue, rather than everyone else breaking the law.

Those privileged actions are mostly irrelevant when discussing mass surveillance. Doubly so since they can just buy or acquire the data from corps.

For one, not throwing out their only differentiated advantage versus Chrome. For two, not taking the option that removes user control and customization whenever there is an option to do so. They could have been the privacy-focused browser, but it is still full of crap like this and various bits of undisclosed telemetry.

There would be value in being the only browser to actually stop when users tell them no. But they seem incapable of listening.

Moving ssh off of port 22 makes it a pain in the ass to work with. Ports are standardized for a reason.

Authentication attempts are a useful security signal; I don't want to filter them out. I want hosts running dictionary attacks to not be able to connect to my services in the first place. If you are running an SSH bot, then I don't want you on my website or anything else.

That is not the correct label for this argument. The argument is that there are a limited amount of hours in the day and that there are different amounts of risk. The optimal amount of risk is probably not zero.

There is a very good argument to be made that training AI is fair use, as it is both transformative and does not compete with the original work. This has yet to be tested in court.

The extraordinary nature of a claim or its proof is by nature a subjective one.

Are there such a thing as UI experts anymore? It seems like we only have designers left, and I am none too thrilled about their influence.

There is always a other criteria for concern. Basically nobody understands their own desire to police the behavior of other people as merely doing something that they don't like.

Trying to get people fired crosses a line into harassment, as far as I'm concerned. But if we are talking about mere words on the screen, nothing else, then you do have the ability to turn the device off and walk away.

The problem there is that by default a virtual environment version of Python is just a symbolic link to the actual binaries installed elsewhere on the machine. If you do an OS upgrade or do anything that increments the system Python version, it could cause problems in the environment.

It literally does. Whether someone has a stake in an argument does not affect whether it is true or false.

Zero offense taken, and I agree completely, it's just that most tasks a person would want to do with Python are probably simple enough to where usage of a language model will save a significant amount of time.

It doesn't mean you can turn your brain off and just mindlessly copy and paste whatever gets output, but for basics and boilerplate it's a massive time save, and I only foresee the capabilities getting better over time. It's just that comments like the one I was replying to come off as childishly throwing one's toys out of the pram because they are imperfect.

I grow skeptical of these angry anti-AI posts when they lack such easily-provided evidence. There is a share button on every chat on ChatGPT. You could just share the conversation here and spare us all a lot of pointless back-and-forth.

https://chat.openai.com/share/371863ec-edbd-4454-8b19-382035...

Here is an example of the kind of scripting I do regularly with ChatGPT. I cannot speak to its capabilities with Go, but it is quite proficient at Python.

Because of their ability to send a push message to their users, urging them to express disapproval of some bill that threatens their existence?

As someone with ALS, This drug was prescribed for me by my doctor as equivalent to other ALS medications, namely that they barely slow the progression of the disease. We are talking three to six months of life extension.

You are overselling the effects of this drug harder than the manufacturer did.

Is there any actual, concrete data about the supposed harm Tiktok poses to health or security? The first one seems like out-of-touch geriatric politicians having a go at a wedge issue in an election year, and the second one places it on equal footing with Facebook and YouTube.

I don't find the "China scary" motivations behind this bill to be particularly convincing.

That's appropriately cynical for HN, but this Gilens & Page study is a classic case of lying with statistics, at least when it comes to the conclusion.

And like most statistics, they can be read to support almost any conclusion you want. A deeper dive on that study shows that it's not really that simple, or that distressing: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...

Important quote:

America is an imperfect democracy, in other words — but it's hardly an oligarchy. When the rich and middle class disagree, each wins about half the time.

First off, thank you for the information.

Second, this comment would have been better without the final three paragraphs, which amounted to flame bait.

How does that not demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the regulations?

Plain old consumer device safety stuff would apply here.

Halt with an error message explaining the ambiguity and the proper switch to use.

Same principle as rm requiring --no-preserve-root if you actually want to nuke / - right now it's way too easy to accidentally and destructively do the wrong thing.

The fact that they have a detectable "stance on issues" is exactly the reason to call their neutrality and independence into question.

That only results in your money going to miscellaneous secondary concerns and administrative bloat.

there is no version of this story where the board doesn’t do whatever they hell they want, and no version where “making the case” doesn’t result in even more chaos.

The failure to make their case is PRECISELY why the board was ultimately unable to do what the hell they wanted: remove Sam Altman. As it turned out, his presence was important enough to the employees that the usual corporate playbook of "do whatever the hell we want and only disclose what is legally required" backfired spectacularly.

If your thesis was correct, Sam would not be there right now.

A neat attack, but probably unrealistic in the context of those downloads being on github.

And how did that attitude work out for them? Upwards of 90% of their staff threatened to bail out, every single one of them look like fools in public, and I would be shocked if there were not some recriminations behind closed doors from the likes of Microsoft's CEO.