HN user

el_cujo

1,010 karma
Posts0
Comments210
View on HN
No posts found.

I think this was true at one point but not for the past 5-10 years. Based off of using the site I feel like now a lot of things start on other sites (particularly smaller accounts on twitter), get aggregated and popularized on 4chan, and then get picked up on other sites (often regurgitated back to twitter). Knowyourmeme shows this for a lot of things that people typically attribute as original to 4chan. There was definitely a time when a ton of stuff originated on 4chan but these days everything is so interconnected with the same people posting on twitter, reddit, and 4chan that I think 4chan gets a lot of unearned credit

I'm not an OpenAI apologist and don't like what they've done with other people's intellectual property but I think that's kind of a false equivalency. OpenAI's GPT 3.5/4 was a big leap forward in the technology in terms of functionality. DeepSeek-r1 isn't really a huge step forward in output, it's mostly comparable to existing models, one thing that is really cool about it is it being able to be trained from scratch quickly and cheaply. This is completely undercut if it was trained off of OpenAI's data. I don't care about adjudicating which one is a bigger thief, but it's notable if one of the biggest breakthroughs about DeepSeek-r1 is pretty much a lie. And it's still really cool that it's open source and can be run locally, it'll have that over OpenAI whether or not the training claims are a lie/misleading

Yeah I think that kind of thing isn't supposed to be "predictive". The "rules" in series aren't very clear, sometimes they type stuff out into a keyboard, sometimes they connect a cable from their head, sometimes they just pass stuff around/hack basically just just "telepathically" without even needing the wire, they do whatever seems cool for a scene. I think the "splitting fingers" thing happens in one of the movies but also in SAC, but I think the point is just that it looks interesting and seeing the fingers do that and start suddenly typing quickly gives a sense of tension/urgency that you wouldn't get if it was just the character sitting back and staring at the screen (even if "in universe" they're able to work just as effectively that way)

Agree 100%, even if you can manage an exception it does not look good to be the odd man out. It's easy to imagine people like this being the initial "easy choices" when layoff discussions happen. Not saying people should just roll over, but if you can manage an exception and see work from home as a requirement, I'd view that as your opportunity to maintain employment while looking for a company that takes remote work seriously

One red flag should be that nowhere in this news article is the reader made aware of the exact nature of the manipulated images or their implications.

Because that was covered in detail when the manipulations were first reported and those articles are linked to in the above article. This is just reporting on the resulting retraction two years after that initial report.

it's much less dramatic and all the findings were also replicated following this inquiry to show that any image alteration, that might have been made for editorial purposes, does not affect conclusions

Other groups had issues replicating the results with the same oligomer (often just chalked up to its instability), it's not like someone just happened to stumble upon these manipulations casually. This retraction only happened because Nature rejected the author's attempt to publish a correction. This whole thing is a black mark on Nature's record as well so if it really was just some minor change to make a picture look prettier for publishing purposes, I doubt they would have insisted on this action

There really isn't one in my opinion. Academic postdoc positions in many fields are pitched as a stepping stone to professorship, but professor positions are very few so you end up with PHDs continuing the low-pay grind after graduation to prop up academia for a dream that doesn't come true. I think it's good more are recognizing this and just going to industry, maybe eventually this will cause problems and academia can be motivated to fix itself instead of viewing post docs as disposable. Or maybe there's no problem to fix and this is academia just getting correctly recognized as the grind option for people who are actually ok with that

Absolutely, but most of this stuff happens outside of what shows up in the paper like coming up with excuses on why data points can be dropped or shopping around for different statistical methods that make things look the best. There can even be legit reasons for doing this kind of thing and that's what makes it hard to detect, it's basically just the honor system on whether you're "p-value hacking" or following common methods.

This is kind of why it annoys me a bit when I hear people harping on about trusting science, most science is not as simple as finding objective truths and just reporting them. That's not to say all science is bs and you're better off consulting a magic 8 ball, just that it should never be discouraged to look at methods and conclusions with a critical attitude. There is room for things to be fudged or pushed and very strong incentives for people to do it given how much money and prestige are on the line. It doesn't even have to be as big as a drug trial, one high profile publication can be enough to make a career so you can see how tempting it can be to just change a couple pixels in an image to boost a theory you earnestly believe is true

I don't think those ideas necessarily contradict. If you're using VR to collaborate with someone on the other side of the country (or world) but you only need to collaborate intermittently, then remote collaboration just has to be "good enough" to offset the cost of travel even if in person would be ideal. Meanwhile, for their own employees who may need to collaborate daily, from their point of view they might think in that case it makes more sense to enforce in-person. I doubt Meta's stated goal (at this point) with their VR stuff is that you should never ever leave your house because VR is just as good, seems like it's more "this thing enables remote to be better".

In a painfully literal sense, yeah it's being paid by tax payers because everyone pays taxes. The better distinction is that it is not paid via tax revenue. Even if the FDIC has to levy fees on banks to help cover the cost and the banks raise fees on their customers to cover this, this is not the same as the tax payers funding the bailout because they're not funding it in their capacity as tax payers (where they have no option but to pay the government and would probably prefer their money go towards building a school or something). Additionally, the banks wouldn't just be scooping the extra money out of people's accounts, it would be in the form of higher fees or something which the customer could decide to leave the bank over if they desired. Most wouldn't do this, but again the point is that there is at least an option where as a tax payer funded bailout there isn't. At a certain point, everything in the economy is connected and you could drill deep enough to say the tax payer pays for literally everything, but at that point the label becomes meaningless.

The_Donald was neutered a long time ago. The real story is the 200 other subs getting shut down and Reddit essentially saying the wild west days on their site are actually over now. Several publications have focused on The_Donald at least in the headline because I assume it makes for a sexier, more political story than about a website cracking down on moderation.

I agree that it's probably not a 100% accurate picture, but if you included in the "known cases" every single person who stayed home out of paranoia because they had a stuffy nose, then you'd have the opposite problem of numbers being bloated and overblown. The media is already chomping at the bit to sow fear and paranoia in exchange for views, I'm ok with looking at data with the understanding that it's probably underrepresented versus data that is probably just a complete guess. In an ideal world, yes, every single hospital would have thousands of test kits on hand to test everyone but we aren't there yet.

If you look at it from the point of view of "am I going to die from corona virus?" then yes, the panic is overblown (for most people anyway). The real fear is that enough people are going to get sick and have to stay home (to eventually recover) that it will severely disrupt the world, ranging from economic markets to supply of food/drugs at grocery stores. I'm not necessarily saying I buy into that doomsday/prepper hype, but seeing news like Japan recommending school closures definitely makes me worry.

Yeah I definitely think there are probably some people like this with messed up cycles that they can't do anything about it. But in general, it does kind of annoy me when people who are late to stuff in the morning blame it on being a nite owl, kind of disposing of any responsibility as if they have a real medical disorder or something when I think for most people it has more to do with enjoying doing stuff late at night or just getting in a habit of staying up late from trying to stretch the day before having to go to work.

I've always been skeptical of the early-riser v night-owl dichotomy. When I was younger and in highschool, I had to be to school early every day, so I was on the early-riser schedule of sleep at ~10 PM wake at ~6 AM. When I later went to college, I adjusted to a sleep at ~2 AM wake at ~10 AM schedule. Anyone who is on one of these schedules is going to naturally have difficulty if one random day of the week they need to, say, be at work extra early or be out extra late, that's usually where this kind of thing comes up. I feel like this has much more to do with whatever routine you're currently in than it does with any instinctive preference.

Where Sci-Hub Is 6 years ago

you write papers for free

Actually you often pay a couple thousand dollars as a publishing fee to get your paper in the journal after review. I'm sure it's not necessarily like that in every journal, but the bigger ones do it that way. So basically pay them to take your content, pay them to view their content, and do labor for them by reviewing papers for free.

My first thought: can this possibly be solvent? There are apx. 32 million adults in California. Are there $32 billion spent per month in-state on things that aren't those common categories?

I'd be curious to see a way of doing this that didn't depend on the arbitrary "X dollars per month" stipulation and was instead just "we're putting in this tax, whatever we pull in each month will be evenly split among the citizens". If nothing else, it would allow us to get our feet wet with UBI without people worrying about it not being financially feasible.

Not your project, not your choice.

I feel like this should be obvious to anyone who has ever read a blogpost or editorial, but the author isn't literally commanding all free software projects to stop using discord as if he has that kind of authority, he's making a recommendation and then goes into detail about why he thinks this way, ending with some alternatives. It's bizarre seeing someone react to an article like this with offense not because of any of the content or points, but for... not showing enough deference in their title?

I tend to agree, but I also think this borders on a "think of the children!" type argument that's led to our current privacy ecosystem (the patriot act, snowden, etc.). No I'm not suggesting some silly video game chat app clamping down on trolls is some sort of dramatic slippery slope into an authoritarian state, but I do think it's interesting that the "I don't care about privacy because I have nothing to hide" attitude has even become popular on HN.

There are some great alternatives. I’m not going to tell you to go use IRC like some cranky old Thinkpad-toting unixbeard who doesn’t recognize that mobile apps are a hard requirement for meaningful social collaboration these days. IRC is a total nonstarter for this use case for many reasons which have been written about before.

I'm not really a heavy IRC user, but is it really that hard for somebody to make a slick IRC frontend with a mobile app as well? I would think that IRC already existing takes away the hardest part for making a chat system like this.

I have seen people drop over $1000 dollars in gifted subscriptions/coins over the course of a single stream where a guy is just playing a video game. I'll admit that this kind of thing isn't common, and you definitely aren't going to find 100 people with that level of disposable income for your following, but there are plenty of people who blow what seems like an unreasonable amount of money just so a stranger on the other side of a screen will notice them.

patreon is basically an e-begging platform

This is more true for some people than others. A decent number of YouTubers I know have their patreons set up to only charge customers after they put out a video, so if several months go by without any new content they aren't just pulling a salary from patrons. This model is only really relevant to YouTubers who put effort into fewer videos released farther apart, rather than those with weekly or even daily releases of vlog content, but still it feels like a fair way of doing things where they are essentially being paid for releasing something and not like begging.

Contrast this with some people I see on twitter who have a patreon... just for tweeting? Occasionally there is a spin put on it about being a minority or disabled and taking donations, but this definitely feels much more like e-begging, even though I guess you could try and make the argument that tweets are just as valid "content" as youtube videos.

I meant more that even a new, small company would have no incentive to not want to become the next big thing/the next facebook. Good point though that we don't need companies/start-ups to feed us online communities, particularly since the users are almost always the ones bringing value to platform like a message board/forum sites.