calibas

This will be very useful if they can find a way to make it without something that costs $12,000 per kg.

one of the V3A animations reminds me loosely of things I saw when I was a kid, at night, shortly before I slept

Hypnagogic hallucinations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia

The largest tree on record is rejected in part because it's over the theoretical limit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nooksack_Giant

Too bad we cut it down, along with almost every other giant Douglas-fir.

There's evidence creatine may raise DHT levels, and DHT causes hair thinning: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19741313/

Our long term plan is for Jesus to come back and fix everything.

I wish I was joking...

If the photography was mediocre, nobody would accuse it of being AI, but because it's the flawless photography of a true professional, suddenly it's highly suspect.

I notice the article, the paper, and the "plain language" summary of the paper don't mention the common term for this phenomenon, St Elmo's fire.

I was playing around with this recently, but the problem I encountered is that most AI analysis techniques like stem separation aren't built to work in real-time.

Yeah, that seems like an odd thing to say.

It's like they're setting themselves up for a "no true Scotsman" argument. Anybody who disagrees with their decisions isn't a "true believer" in open source.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree that LLMs should be inserting ads into git commits.

By default, the LLM is credited with authorship anyway, and I assume the user can easily just remove the ad, though I don't use Copilot.

You're conflating two different things. When an LLM writes a commit, it should take credit. I see nothing wrong with it adding:

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 noreply@anthropic.com

Compare that to the message the article is talking about:

Quickly spin up Copilot coding agent tasks from anywhere on your macOS or Windows machine with Raycast (https://gh.io/cca-raycast-docs).

It's not just mentioning it was written via Copilot, it's explicitly advertising for another product.

It was largely replaced with it's molecular analog, BPS.

Just like BPA, BPS is an endocrine disruptor. The idea that it's less harmful than BPA is mostly due to lack of research.

Everyone's being diplomatic, including most of the HN comments.

This seems to be the simplest compromise, and allows OpenTTD to continue existing without too many problems from Atari, so people don't want to make waves.

I'm confused, you think I'm saying he's breaking guidelines?

I should have been more clear, but I was trying to skirt the guidelines. I'm sure that astroturfing happens on HN, and I think that not allowing people to talk about it actually helps enable astroturfing.

I've seen no one working on this, and in fact most people on HN seem to be working on ways to further exacerbate this problem.

It's against the HN guidelines to insinuate that astroturfing happens on HN.

If I boycott a company, am I legally responsible for any lost profit that happens as a result?

Calling it a "mystery" gets suckers like me to click the link.

If it's not clear already, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not using strict legal definitions.

Yep, that's the exact "loophole" I mentioned in my original comment!

The government can now partner with private businesses to effectively bypass the Fourth Amendment.

You seem to be playing dumb here. You realize us "normal people" believe the Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government, and the 4th means the government doesn't get to spy on everybody indiscriminately?

And yes, they are spying on everybody. They have access to things like cellphone metadata, which to a normal human being is a very clear violation of privacy.

It's also my firm belief that our legal system has been undermining these basic concepts for decades now. It benefits the federal government to make this all very vague, as if modern technology suddenly means you have no expectation of privacy anymore. They've also mixed in some of that wonderfully authoritarian "for purposes of national security".

There's actual lawyers saying these same things, if you'd like someone to properly debate with.

You're an attorney and you're asking me why the government spying on everyone is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment?

It's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, but the government acts like they've found a "loophole" because it's private businesses doing the spying.

This doesn't seem very fair, you speak as if you're being objective, then lean heavy into the FUD.

Even if you were correct, and "truth" is essentially dead, that still doesn't call for extreme cynicism and unfounded accusations.

Personally, I take a break from AI and write the code myself at least a few times each day. It keeps one intellectually honest about whether or not you really understand what's going on.

Where do you think Wikipedia gets its information?

The World Facebook is one of the most cited sources on Wikipedia.

It's vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, and the man-in-the-middle happens to be Meta.

The tricky part would be doing it and not getting caught though.

So use Rust instead, Godot supports bindings via FFI: https://godot-rust.github.io/

I wont claim it works flawlessly, but you don't have to use GDScript or C# to program Godot.

You can also use C++, Go, Java, Typescript, Zig, Scala, Kotlin and Swift: https://github.com/Godot-Languages-Support/godot-lang-suppor...

Fair enough, so then how fast would a semi-attentive driver stop?

The comment I originally replied to makes the claim a human's brain wouldn't have even responded fast enough to register the child was there. That's going WAY further than how Waymo is claiming a human would have responded.

I don't see how that's a more reasonable assumption that a human driver actually being "fully attentive", and I'm not sure Waymo's definition of that term is the same as what you're using.

A human driver travelling at the same speed would have hit that child at exactly 17 mph, before their brain even registered that child was there.

Not sure where this is coming from, and it's directly contradicted by the article:

Waymo said in its blog post that its “peer-reviewed model” shows a “fully attentive human driver in this same situation would have made contact with the pedestrian at approximately 14 mph.” The company did not release a specific analysis of this crash.

Sounds like it's about the precession of the equinoxes and the new "Age of Aquarius".