HN user
I agree that this is not an apocalyptic moment for the protocol. And I support what Blacksky is doing, so I kind of hate that this will probably be the only thing I get to say to you.
But the argument that established, profitable organizations in the atproto space have no qualms with this move is not as reassuring as you might think.
Yeah, that closing message was a little weird to me. I understand framing the article as "not anti-AI", especially if the author uses and enjoys the tools. But the end sounds like a call to blindly adopt the tools and figure out the justification later.
I'm just coming across this discussion now, but I did a little research that I can add to possibly explain the difference between the advertised capacity and the perceived capacity.
The 4400 number is based on a capacity test that the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority performed[1] to certify the Vegas Loop met its contractual requirements, which was 4400 riders per hour. The test was performed with "about 300 people", so results were extrapolated to reach the final number. The LVCVA didn't publish any further information about their methodology, so we can't really comment for sure on how realistic their conclusions might be.
However, a few months after the tunnel opened, there was some criticism[2] saying, "the highest hourly passenger rate hit thus far is 1,355 passengers per hour." It also notied that the ride took 4 minutes instead of the 2-minute goal. A spokesperson from the LVCVA responded:
“The ride itself does in fact take two minutes,” Nelson-Kraft said. “What wasn’t taken into account are other factors of the Loop experience, like passengers load in and load out time. [...]"
Given that the LVCVA conducted the original capacity "stress test", I think it would be reasonable to guess that they tested only how many passengers can be pushed through the 12-foot-wide tunnel and did not consider loading and unloading as part of overall rates.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210707125245/https://news3lv.c...
[2] https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior... (soft paywall, viewable with JS disabled)
I was once in a hackerspace that held regular "show and tell" nights for people to present interesting technology projects. We eventually hit a rash of non-regulars bringing in "projects" that were essentially sales-pitches for devices sold through multi-level marketing scams. Figuring out how to ban those without blocking someone who intended to monetize their projects was tricky.
Point being: just because a thing technically fits the genre does not mean it is something that the audience wants to listen to.
They're not collecting in depth telemetry on every mile you drive, as you drive it.
I mean, yes and no. It is most likely that the majority of carmakers are not collecting detailed telemetry. But we know from data breaches that some cars collect pretty detailed information.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a63306050/exposed-vw-data-...
MC Frontalot and MC Lars had a fun take on this same concept in "Captains of Industry", which you may enjoy, depending on your feelings on old nerdcore hip-hop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTrKmP7oU9U
It's pretty funny, and includes Fronalot's characteristic wordplay with lyrics like:
Captains are we. Of what? Industry.
Which could also be taken as:
Captains are we, of what industry?
I agree that it's self-fulfilling. I just feel that it's being used more as a tool for compliance than for direct productivity.
It's use AI or be replaced by AI
I think they want to sell that perception, but the biggest thing the tech execs want in their SWEs is fear.
Fear that makes us stay in our jobs, even when raises and bonuses stagnate, because the market is scary with all the "AI layoffs" (which have largely been regular downsizing with the AI label slapped on).
Fear that makes us use the LLMs and then put in extra hours when we don't see the 10x productivity gains that they expect.
Fear that makes us erode our own skills and become dependent on these gatekeepers to maintain even a base level of productivity.
So much of the advertising and discussion around AI is based around fear. It's inevitable. It will take your job. Render you useless. It will render humanity useless. You better get in now, or you'll both lose your job and could end up in a virtual hell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk).
The strategy is called "Buy, Borrow, Die"
https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/03/tax-loop... (viewable by disabling JS)
What do you want the title to be? "Have a Website"?
No, that's missing the emphasis. "I Strongly Encourage Businesses to Have a Website"? There we go. That sounds bland enough to be regurgitated by your LLM of the week.
Enjoy your war on adjectives, I guess. It's certainly going to make the world more interesting. Jesus fucking christ.
Interesting that this question didn't warrant a response.
Anyway, here's new research demonstrating the near polar opposite of the original claim, in case anyone digging up these old threads was also wondering if slibhb's foundational arguments held up: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389855619_Global_Wa...
and the worst case scenarios have already been avoided.
Do you have a source on this?
In many cases, the decision to install Flock cameras have been made by city councils and sheriffs' offices. So it very much depends on local candidates.
On the broader topic, I'm not sure that just voting is the way that we'll get out of this mess, but I think a large part of the problem is how our focus on wider, national issues has eroded the interest in the local. So people seem to be most disenfranchised from the level of politics where they can actually have the most influence, both by voting and direct action (protests, calls, etc).
Cynicism warning, but my honest guess is they see that the Colbert problem will be solved in June and so don't feel the need to spend any effort on him.
At least it is possible for an unethical person to face meaningful consequences and change their behavior.
Ford Motor Company manufactured charcoal, but in the end it stayed a car company.
I was a little miffed that this blog didn't include a link to that particular study, especially with how vague the citation is, so I went and found the original publication[0].
Of note, they have a "Setting the record straight" addendum[1] that includes a couple important quotes:
"Misconception #1: Office workers should now be confused about whether they should sit or stand, and about whether sit/stand stations are a good idea. They shouldn’t be, says Smith. The study’s main finding was about workers who are required to stand for long periods (i.e. five hours or more) throughout their work shift, without opportunities to sit. Extending this to any worker who stands (e.g. an office worker using a sit-stand desk) is not correct. This is because office workers who stand at these types of workstations likely have the option to sit down when they get tired or when they feel pain in their legs and back."
and
"Misconception #2: We no longer have to worry about the negative health effects of prolonged sitting, thanks to this study. Not so fast, says Smith. There was nothing in this study to refute the research on the health consequences of a sedentary lifestyle. Much of that research is about sitting too much throughout the day—at work, while commuting and at home. This study only focused on prolonged sitting and prolonged standing at work.
"And even within the study, another finding about prolonged sitting at work got lost in the coverage. Yes, prolonged standing occupations were linked with twice the risk of heart disease as prolonged sitting jobs. However, prolonged sitting jobs were still linked, among men, with a 40 per cent higher risk of heart disease compared to jobs that involve a mix of standing, sitting and walking."
[0] https://www.iwh.on.ca/newsletters/at-work/90/standing-too-lo...
[1] https://www.iwh.on.ca/news/study-on-prolonged-standing-and-h...
My bad. Thanks for clarifying.
Ah, my bad. That does seem to lower the stakes a bit.
As an example: a an African American janitor in our kids' school voted republican in 2024 for the first time in his life, because the park in his Brooklyn neighborhood has become a shanty town and he can't work out there.
Okay, first off, I am just very confused by this sentence. How is the "shanty town" preventing him from working? Does he work from his home in Brooklyn? Is the school located in the park? Does he want to work in the park but is force to work at the school? I know this isn't the most important part, but I haven't been able to parse the story. Edit: others explained that this is "work out" there, and not related to being a janitor. Thanks. I feel the rest still stands.
Further, I don't understand how what is happening is supposed to solve the "underlying issue". How does 3000 federal agents breaking windows and shoving people in Minneapolis help a Brooklyn community poor enough to become a shanty town? It would be like if I, in my job, had an backend outage on our website, and I went to the design team and began berating them while I fixed a couple UI issues. Sure, I might solve some real problems, and it could feel good in some cathartic way (especially if I've had unanswered complaints for years). But I wouldn't call it "fixing the underlying issues".
I believe it is most likely that the people who still support this style of enforcement have been hurt much like you, some acutely but many just slowly over time, and have bought into the idea that some "other" is at fault. And they want to see that "other" dealt with in some way, any way. Even if it means people get hurt, because they themselves have been hurt. So why not the "other"?
But I don't believe a shanty town in the most populous city what is supposed to be the richest and most prosperous country on Earth is caused by the poorest few percent of people living here. I don't think an illegal immigrant in Minneapolis is at fault, even if they have a "criminal background" (insidious phrasing that inflates numbers by lumping in people who may have paid their debt to society). I don't want to see people hurt.
The gambling analogy has been brought up before.
https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/06/05/generative-ai-runs-on-gam...
I have many questions about your methodology:
- How many stations were you left with?
- Did that number decline over time (as you excluded replacement stations)?
- What was your scale?
- Are you willing to share your results?
- How is this still the top comment after 30 minutes?
But your comment touches on a common misconception, which is that heat islands must be excluded to accurately measure the overall temperature. You refer to the idea as "heat-producing objects", but I would argue that a parking lot is more of a heat reflecting object. More to the point, even heat islands must be considered as part of the worldwide climate, simply because they are part of this wide world. Their heat does not simply disappear (I hope you agree that would violate physics).
Imagine we want to measure the average temperature inside a single 30-foot by 10-foot room during winter. We have two probes: one near a burning fireplace on one end of the room, and one near a window on the other. If we excluded data from one probe or the other, do you believe we would get an accurate average reading?
Of course, when scientists are calculating a global temperature, they have to handle special cases in the data (like heat islands). This has been known for some time, and you can read more about it here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-ma...
I fear that I've spent too much time responding to this, but I wanted to take it on in earnest.
Basically every country has been conducting a massive geoengineering project in the open for the past decades by releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) into the atmosphere. We've been able to detect that, yes.
Do you happen to remember any of the articles where you performed this experiment? I ask because specifically around 5 years ago, I know there were a number of cartoons where the creators intentionally wrote characters with queer representation in mind (She-Ra is the first to come to mind). So, if the sections you were removing had been properly cited and relevant to the actual series, then the removal for being "nothing more than attempts to use those articles to push a 'queer' viewpoint on the subject matter" probably did not represent a neutral viewpoint.
Of course, this depends on you opening up your research to some peer review.
Did you fix them?
Those are examples that are discussed in the article, yes.
Everyone, please, don't fight.
It's both.
The companies wouldn't have this specific data if it wasn't for the age verification laws. Companies also work to amass as much private data as possible about their users without any influence from government and are often not good stewards of it.
Let's also not forget that companies like Discord often support and work with governments on these kind of laws because they prefer a consolidated regulatory structure and it has the added benefit of making life more difficult for smaller competitors that may enter the space.
They are complying in the same way that the rich kid who keeps getting called out for using his hands on the football (soccer) field complies with the rules by taking his ball and going home.
I didn't see it explicitly stated, but I think it supports the "overworked" part of this statement:
Open source, the thing that drives the world, the thing Harvard says has an economic value of 8.8 trillion dollars (also a big number). Most of it is one person. And I can promise you not one of those single person projects have the proper amount of resources they need. If you want to talk about possible risks to your supply chain, a single maintainer that’s grossly underpaid and overworked. That’s the risk. The country they are from is irrelevant.
I don't know why, but it always irks me when a corporation puts out a document like this cosplaying as peer-reviewed research, and they don't bother to put in even a lip-service "conflict of interest" disclosure. I should expect it at this point.