acoard

Isn't that exactly what Plato's saying? The books cannot understand themselves, and we rely upon them, and in doing so that changes us.

Plato on how reading and writing make us more forgetful as we rely on this new technology:

And so it is that you by reason of your tender regard for the writing that is your offspring have declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.

I think this works unironically. My mother is an avid gardener and can spend 8 hours a day gardening. When her life circumstances allowed for it, she hired a once a week gardener to do the tasks she didn't like (or had difficulties doing as a small woman), and still gardens the same amount. I've teased her for hiring a gardener, but she swears it's a huge help and boost to her gardening quality of life.

Executing people guilty of serious crimes is good and just. They should have a proper trial, and the crimes should be sufficiently serious, but execution is no more or less "barbaric" than the alternatives. As Adam Smith said, "mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."

What about longer rest periods? For example if I wait 1hr between sets I can do full weight again without dropping down weights with a 2-5min break. In fact I can get multiple more sets in and significantly increase my total volume if I spread a workout over a day (which is easier with WFH). Any thoughts on this? Is there not enough muscle fatigue with this approach?

And LLMs slurped some of those together with the output of thousands of people who’d do the task worse, and you have no way of forcing it to be the good one every time.

That's solvable though, whether through changing training data or RL.

There is none, it's the most respected/widely read conservative publication. Calling Rebel News the Breitbart equivalent is more fair.

CBC is definitely left wing[1], with a bias towards the liberal party (centre-left). Globe and Mail is centrist[0].

https://ground.news/interest/the-globe-and-mail

https://ground.news/interest/cbc-news

It's completely unreasonable. Calling someone a dickhead in any professional environment is unprofessional and should be grounds for dismissal.

Should bosses also get one free insult for their employees too? Obviously not.

Yes, the type system basically replaces a degree of unit tests. You no longer need unit tests that are basically just type checking. And it's more comprehensive too. It's much easier to have incomplete test coverage without knowing it than an invalid type system. With such a type system, the app will fail to compile. Of course, you still need unit tests for many other things, but the type system does remove a class of them.

Whether typechecking or unit tests is "better" is really a question of taste.

We only have access to local models because they're subsidized too.

Yes, and the flow of future models may dry up, but the current local models we'll have forever.

I'm sympathetic to the issue of services getting worse, it sucks, but

If an API delivers very solid results one day and crap the next and I spent a lot of money, how does that work? There are many people on reddit/youtube speculating why claude sometimes responds like a brilliant coder and sometimes as if it had a full frontal lobotomy. I see this in Cursor too.

This seems like an incredible over-reach. There's no predatory behaviour here. You're free to cancel at any time.

It's an incredibly fast moving field, a frontier field in software. To say that, in order to charge for something, you are legally bound to never make mistakes and have regressions, is an incredibly hostile environment to work in. You'll stifle growth if people think experiments might come with lawsuits unless they're positive it leads to improvement.

If they decided they were going to lock everything to gpt-2 and refuse to pay back any people who bought yearly subscriptions, sure I would be agreeable to considering this a bait-and-switch hoodwink. But that is clearly not happening here.

Because memory bandwidth is the #1 bottleneck for inference, even more than capacity.

But there are a ton of models I can't run at all locally due to VRAM limitations. I'd take being able to run those models slower. I know there are some ways to get these running on CPU orders of magnitude slower, but ideally there's some sort of middle ground.

But it seems like Airbus is the exception to the rule, by and large. For example, the Typhoon Eurofighter has had disappointing exports.

My next question is are there downsides to proof-of-stake, and why has bitcoin not moved towards it?

There are minor downsides in theory. Proof-of-stake is a bit less "democratic" and gives more voting share to those who have more money, vs. just are mining. In practice, proof-of-stake coins seem to be doing fine. The main one here is Ethereum.

The main reason Bitcoin hasn't is due to inertia and the interest for miners (who do proof-of-work) to use their democratic power to keep bitcoin invested in proof-of-work.

Unsaid is of course that the USA accused, found guilty, and executed someone without trial, where evidence is shown of their guilt. Sure on balance I think Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, but I think the source for this belief is the US government.

The United States declared war on Al-Qaeda, and killed it's leader in response to an attack on 9/11 that leader claimed credit for. Domestic courts don't factor in here. Any country is lawfully allowed to kill enemy combatants or military leadership in a war.

To be fair, reality can often conflate those two concepts too. What I mean is that in some cases a lack of sovereignty can lead to economic catastrophe if people are willing to pillage your economy by force. As you note it depends on circumstance though - Lichtenstein can get away without having an army; Rojava can't.

Why? A bit of a head scratcher.

It is because not everyone sees Israel as committing war crimes. I'm not looking in getting into a debate about it, I don't think this is the appropriate thread and do not want to run afoul of HN guidelines. But to treat your question as if it is serious and sincere (i.e. not a rhetorical question) the answer is because many do not see Israel as committing war crimes but basically everyone agreed China was censoring. I'd also add that censorship can be a particularly sensitive topic the tech community is largely more polarized against than the wider country, whereas weapons of war are viewed by some as valid defensive work. Basically, nerds care about censorship disproportionately. And of course, opinions on both China and Israel would be baked into this too.

Again, not looking to get into the actual substance of these points here, merely answering your question for why large amounts of people see these as different.

True, but this ignores the fact that Boeing employees were actively "designing new planes" in that time, and thus had the skill set. From your wiki link, some choice excerpts (not one whole paragraph):

In 1963 [edit: 6 years before], the United States Air Force started a series of study projects on a very large strategic transport aircraft. Although the C-141 Starlifter was being introduced, officials believed that a much larger and more capable aircraft was needed, especially to carry cargo that would not fit in any existing aircraft

In 1965, Lockheed's aircraft design and General Electric's engine design were selected for the new C-5 Galaxy transport, which was the largest military aircraft in the world at the time.[1] Boeing carried the nose door and raised cockpit concepts over to the design of the 747.

And from some other articles:

At Boeing, Sutter worked on many commercial airplane projects, including the 367-80 "Dash 80", 707, 727 and 737. He eventually became a manager for the new jumbo-sized wide body airplane, the four-engine Boeing 747. [0]

My only point is they didn't go from zero to 747 in 3 years. They went from having an active culture of building jets, and doing R&D in this area, and having people that had successfully worked on other new jet design projects. They went from that to having a 747 in 3 years. Still incredibly impressive, but if we admit that culture is lacking now, it's entirely conceivable it'd take longer than 3 years to build a comparable jet today. (Look at how much slower north america builds rail now, or anything, compared to the 60s).

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Sutter

This principle is already in use in "Ski-jump" aircraft carriers[0] like the British and Chinese use, compared to the catapult operated American carriers. The problem is it isn't remotely high enough. It does have an effect on take off distance, so for that short amount would help for fuel efficiency, but then you still have +30,000ft to climb. 737's often cruise at 30-40k feet, as the air is thinner up there so there's less drag and you have better fuel efficiency. Even if you launched airplanes off the tallest structure ever built (Burj Khalifa, 2,700ft), you'd still have the majority of the climb ahead of you. Planes go high.

My non-credible idea would be to just use an Apple-style magsafe charger on the back of the airplane that disconnects midair at 30,000ft and falls on the helpless people below.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski-jump_(aviation)

NATO does not have air superiority in Ukraine. The skies are contested in many areas. Recently Ukraine lost a number of Bradley’s and when a Ka-52 ambushed them in Zaporizhzhia.

If you’re making the point that America and NATO could join the fight sure, but that’s a hypothetical and the reality now is that the skies in Ukraine are contested.

Ukraine is holding territory. They are not fighting like an insurgency.

Stringers are absolutely useful in LSCO. Soviet doctrine made heavy use of MANPADS (man portable air defense systems, of which Stinger counts) when they were planning for LSCO. Basically every army besides the US army (and its allies) makes heavy use of them, and the US army is different because they plan for the US Air Force to be able to clear the skies for them. Soviet doctrine embedded air defence at all levels of their army, from MANPADS to Pantsirs, Buks, and S-300s etc. This goes from man carrier to short/middle/long range.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but it's sucky to see these tools constantly getting nerfed.

Why would it be popular to nerf tools? I thought people all preferred the more powerful LLM models.

Copying already copyrighted assets is clearly regulated. Valve knows what to do in this situation, and simply pulling down the offending game complies with the copyright regime.

It's unclear what the rules are going to be for AI generated art. There has been no law, or no court case, deciding it. As such, Valve is being a bit more defensive here to limit exposure.

I agree it's not a great trend, but it seems inevitable when this can lead to massive risk (lawsuits including Valve), and the upside is negligible. Valve is not going to lose market share over this, at least not for the foreseeable future.

It’s about legal copyright exposure. The copyright status of AI art is unclear, it has not been legislated or tried before the courts. In a worst case scenario, Steam could allow “AI generated games” on, after which AI art is regulated perhaps requiring permission or royalties from the original art used to train the model. In such a scenario, Valve themselves may get included in the lawsuit.

With this step, Valve massively reduces their legal exposure. Even if some AI are games slip through and the worst case scenario manifests it is still likely Valve will be fine, as they’ve sufficiently isolated themselves from the risk.

As for whether NMS counts, the answer is no. This isn’t about AI per se, it’s about using models trained on other copyrighted works. NMS doesn’t do that in any of its procedural generation.

As for how much AI generated art counts, this is a ship of Theseus problem. Not saying it’s easy, but hardly the first time regulation has come up against it.

Conway's Law:

Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure. [0]

But I think OP is implying the opposite, sort of a reverse-Conway. That the narrative of their product affected the structure of the company.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

I don't think there's an implication per se. It's just a description of fact. This has happened before, and likely will happen again. It's helpful to be aware that we're in a cycle rather than a one-time process.

Have a docker-compose to share? I have Plex and love it too, but that "add to watchlist" type setup seems very interesting. Any links to point me in the right direction?

I used to use sonarr and radarr in the past but used those directly, not via Plex, and to be honest I sometimes ran into issues with them but generally they worked fine.

Heroku was not a player in the 'edge' market. I just googled to confirm. They actually had a "Heroku Edge" CDN that they added in 2020 for the first time[0], which to me is their entry into Edge style hosting.

I think it's fair to call Heroku (and 12factor apps) a pre-cursor to edge computing, but certainly not an early player.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20201126133614/https://devcenter...

Which kind of feels worse from a complexity standpoint from where we were previously, especially if the queries are dynamic instead of largely static.

Agreed on increased complexity, but isn't the point largely the dynamic queries? You setup all this extra architecture, but in response you don't have to write as many "controllers" with custom API response. Just let the frontend request what it needs via GraphQL. So it's more upfront work, less down the line. Or is writing all the API level sanitizers and query resolvers more work?

Did you find out what the issue was?

Does the issue happen when you load with 0 activated extensions?