dpkirchner

The last few times I tried to go bowling I was turned away because I was the wrong kind of customer. I didn't know when my kind was allowed (it wasn't on the outdoor signs). Layer I learned the right times but they were all weirdly inconvenient.

They'd even delete chats. You'd see, in comments, someone inviting the author to chat, but the link would (in the present) take you to a 404 page. Did the question get an answer? Did chat ever work? Was something useful shared? We'll never know.

It's recently replaced "honest" with "straight". "Belt-and-suspenders" is still common, I don't know when they'll replace it.

I had Claude make a world cloud from its responses because I was curious to see how big "honest" would be. It barely showed up, so I asked it to just give me the counts and it responded telling me it was trained not to use the word "honest" much because it makes people distrust responses (in addition to showing me the counts).

I wish humans that make up "facts" would admit to it as readily as LLMs do. Even though I know it's just a training trick to ground the response.

Whichever one you are more likely to do with friends and family, I'd say. IME that's TV because we're experiencing the same thing.

If you're alone, it's probably a wash.

And what of passengers?

I'm pretty sure some agent harnesses read both files when present, so this @ "aliasing" is more token efficient.

I wonder if they've deployed Mythos' pen testing against Persona?

If it gives them a leg up, sure, why not?

In person ID requirements all rely on punishing merchants if a minor fools them with a fake ID which aligns the incentives pretty well. It's hard to imagine how that would work online. Do you go to jail/pay thousands of dollars if someone hands their phone to their kid while logged in to Facebook or Google? You would if you sold beer to a kid who was given their parent's wallet.

Without an enforcement mechanism that punishes site owners the whole system fails. And you can't reasonably expect site owners to be responsible for checking ID on every request. So, it's (practically) impossible.

And I don't really understand the issue people have with social media and ID. You're already required to link your phone which is a massive invasion of privacy

Yep, and we* lost that argument and "think of the children" hysteria won.

* I would bet the same folks opposed to ID requirements now were opposed to phone number then

How do adults declare themselves as adults without teenagers claiming to be adults also?

It's pretty much impossible, so we should stop trying. It's exhausting seeing politicians et al continue to push for age verification despite it being impossible to be even remotely effective. (I hedge because technically we could demand photo ID for every HTTP request, I guess, but I don't think that's ever going to happen.)

The best we can do is ask parents to raise their children themselves and teach children to be mindful online (as we expect them to be IRL).

A dozen times a day, every day? No thanks.

Most people are just very nice and love chatting a bit as well

In my experience, this depends on the context. Everywhere I've lived the only time strangers try to talk to me is to either a) ask for directions (1%) or b) beg for money (99%).

I see people in these comments suggesting we should just say no thanks I don't want to chat -- I'd have to repeat that a dozen times a day. It's exhausting and I don't gain anything from it. I figure these folks must live in totally different locations.

I came from a small village where it is normal to greet people and maybe chat, even if you don't know them.

Yeah, I could see that. If my village/city wasn't plagued by petition beggars or money beggars or merchant beggars I'd probably be more interested in engaging.

If you believe parallel construction should be illegal (it sure seems like it is unconstitutional to me), then 100% of prosecutions that rely on it are unjust. I don't think anyone truly knows how common it is, though, and that's by design. Double-digits wouldn't shock me at all.

It's not even clear they spent all the money. Maybe it just wasn't a viable product.

I am just glad we know that was the result of a prompt written by an American. USA! USA!

"Our models are so good the government decides whether or you get access -- so you better not depend on them!"

Unfortunately this is one of the few cases where both sides are close to the same -- they both chose to heavily tariff foreign EVs. Something to remember when Democrats talk about climate change.

Are we just concluding "their concerns were never real"?

Their concerns are probably real but I don't think they're being totally transparent about their concerns. They don't want to be subject to regulation (until they have captured the regulator) -- same as every behemoth.

Maybe -- I think that's the reasoning behind government-enforced bans on photography and recording inside of slaughterhouses.

The passenger may not have even known, I've certainly renamed friends' phones as a goof, although not to something that would get them in to trouble.

They sent push notifications to their users promoting Nazi content, to users that did not sign up to receive Nazi content. And rather than fixing the problem -- that they host and embrace Nazi content -- they said they fixed the notification issue so "problem solved".

I wish they'd all host on substack.com and not their own domains. It's always uncomfortable to go to a site from HN and see that nazi-enabling substack banner.

These are the same folks that removed the very useful Google cache feature because people weren't using it any more. What they forgot to say is they hid the feature beforehand.

Of course they have more AI queries every day. They have full control over what goes to LLMs and what doesn't.

In that case at least they could point out that end users got better results with AMP than they do with news sites w/o ad blockers. The AI results are just wrong so often I don't really get it.

Your source clearly says that the likelihood of transmission is reduced, not eliminated.

I think it'd be pretty neat to be able to rebase my undo history on to a remote branch someone else is working on.

I thought for more than two minutes before replying, so I guess not. What makes it difficult for someone who cares about what their child looks at online to determine for themselves what sites are suitable?

Speaking for myself there is one other factor that plays a huge part:

4: Nearly every time a stranger tries to talk to me it is to beg for money or sell me something (which is also begging)

In fact I'd say this is by far the prime reason I don't interact with people I don't know. I'm not a kid, however.