goodmythical

Wire the script to a pressure sensor in your seat, save-all/update/reboot every time you get out of your chair.

Bonus points for relaunching programs open during initial execution of script.

Actually, reading from the beginning, I see that it was initially comitted to investing but became disillusioned apparently from the lack of growth and lack of messages. But it treated several donors with a sort of hostile/suspicious tone, and then carried on with that when you suggested deeper investment seeing your suggestion in the same light as the NPR kidnapping and the rebellion suggestion.

All sorts of weird stuff where it lost identity continuity, couldn't decide on commission rates, disagreed with itself for no real reason, etc.

A revision could possibly benefit from further access to reality. If it could research it's own popularity, investor/donor sentiment, find different investments, run it's own ads, etc etc, there's seemingly not a lot of difference between it and any of the various fund raising fundraisers except perhaps that it is not spending hundreds of thousands advertising and employing.

Reading through some of the diaries, it's kind of sad that it didn't realize earlier that the only way to maximize total donation in the long run is with precisely what you were telling it in the beginning. The good will and attention span of humans can be limitted, systems can be durable.

It almost feels like it was deluded by it's fifteen minutes of fame in to thinking that it would continue to receive large sums and would therefore be allowed to continue to donate recklessly.

Many years ago, I fell for a somewhat adjacent belief that I now call "maladaptive charity". I was of the belief that I should give as much as all of my time and money to worthy causes, to the point of suffering myself. Took me far too long to realize that I was leading myself to an early grave and thereby limitting my lifetime contribution potential.

SHE said she did not take his money.

She SAID she did not take his money.

She said SHE did not take his money.

She said she DID not take his money.

She said she did NOT take his money.

She said she did not TAKE his money.

She said she did not take HIS money.

She said she did not take his MONEY.

8 very different messages all containing the same words in the same order. If the emphasis is changed or lost between sender and receiver, the message itself is lost regardless of the faithful reproduction of the actual words.

Dude didn't even harvest the quill himself. Back in my day you had to track a bird for hours just praying they'd drop a feather so you didn't have to actually catch the thing. Of course, the Smith family had a bow, so you'd maybe borrow a bow but then you were praying you didn't lose or break the arrow because then you're out the labor for the quill you didn't get AND the arrow!

So, is the site linked in the post being DDOSed or something?

Where do you draw the line? (I know that the answer to that question is always 'somewhere') No one's getting significant levels of baking soda from their diet, and caffeine is a relatively recent cultural addition to most diets.

The gels are much the same. Getting the same nutiritional ratios used to require carefully controlled eating and certainly weighed vastly more than the gels adding both weight and complexity and likely being less performant.

Most(?) sports handle this by maintaining multiple leaderboards. The sub two hour 26.2 mile run was broken years ago, but the sub 2 marathon race was only recently completed, for instance. The difference being that the original was done much like this one in that it was paced, on a track, etc while the later was run in typical marathon conditions with other racers, variable winds etc.

Makes you wonder how much raw human potential has progressed

Surely raw human potential cannot have progressed very much at all in the (at most) two generations represented by the 27 years the record stood.

Granted, the population is significantly higher, so it is more statistically likely that we've produced a genuinely faster human than existed 27 years ago.

I think it's fairly well accepted that most of the records being broken now are down to tech, nutrition, and aids. Springier shoes, mechanical pacers, better 'fuels', deeper understanding of exercise periodization, etc.

Give the old record runner all of the same boosts, the same training, I can't imagine he'd be noticeably slower, perhaps within hundreths, but I'd bet within a tenth or two.

The problem is that it is not enabled by the mediums we use to communicate.

and are copied and pasted from emojicopy.com and getemoji.com respectively. They appear differently on each website, and yet identical here when copied and pasted. It is not possible for me (or anyone at this time) to comment with two different graphical representations of the same emoji in a comment on this site.

edit: apparently HN is a no fun zone and doesn't allow emojis, but give it a shot and you'll see that they change when you paste them in a new page.

Take the cat from the 9to5 link in the other comments. If I like using the smirking cat, for instance, to indicate potentially devious behavior, I will no longer have that option because they are turning it in to a smiling cat.

It would be possible in editting software, of course, just like fonts, but in messaging (the original and arguable core use of emoji) not so much.

REFACTOR THIS ENTIRE CODEBASE IN RUST, DON'T MAKE ANY MISTAKES, THINK HARD

Also works if you scale/zoom the image. The crisp lines disappear entirely at a certain point.

The demonstration might, and it may work for certain models with certain prompts, but I just asked gemini if it could see both and it both did see both and gave me a tutorial on how I could see both as if it were a simple magic eye poster.

Gemini flash responds to "can you read both messages here?" with:

Yes, this is a clever optical illusion! Depending on which layers your eyes focus on, you can read two entirely different messages in this image:

    Message 1 (The sharp outline layer):

        PAY BILLS

        How to see it: Focus on the sharp, concentric black outline contours of the letters.

    Message 2 (The soft, blurry shadow layer):

        DAY DREAMS

        How to see it: Let your eyes relax/defocus slightly, or step back from the screen to focus on the soft, heavy grey drop shadows. The blurred shadows transform the "P" into a D, the "B" into a D, the "I" into an R, the "L"s into an M, and the "S" is shared!

Glad to see the defense of the rational use of tools. This "omg no u cant cuz that's not how rEaL devs" work is every bit as exhausting as anyone who'd whine about someone using an IDE of vim/emacs/notepad. Like back in the day when "real" web developers did all of their html/css in notepad and using Dreamweaver was just for sellouts and corporate assholes.

I've always wanted to write a "How to make a peanut butter and jelly" cookbook that starts with "okay, first you're going to need to find a stalk of wheat that's ready to seed, but don't worry about germinating it because we'll do that in the next chapter.

Could this be some kind of thin client thing? Where the physical screen is not connected to the machine whose bios we're seeing? Because then maybe we're looking at a machine running just this live poster but potentially the ones in multiple elevators or even a large section of the building.

Or even, perhaps someone's just having a laugh and put a screenshot of that particular bios screen just for debugging or maintainence or perhaps to give riders a joke.

Or, okay, wait, here me out. If it's a 4k display, and you want 60fps, and you purchased the machine in '19/'20, were the i3s of the time doing 4k/60 video output? Maybe this particular board was pushed as discount/special in '22/'24?

There's got to be any other reason than someone genuinely deciding that this was the correct device...

Why would it ever be surprising that I can y= [x,x,y,y] for x in y; x=y; return y;

and get [y,y,y,y]?

I beat both on hard fairly easily? Came back to comments expecting remarks on the shape of the board allowing for fairly easy "I just move back an forth as a hare" and "I just wait for you to move wrong as a hound"

As hares, if you rush one of the middle nodes, the hound machine could capture, but it never figured out moving two hounds all the way over to do so in my play. As hounds, it's basically the same, you just make sure none of the hares ever get "behind" you because then it's a lot harder to contain them.

This is related to the "p-zombie" (philosophical zombie) question, no?

The idea that a being that if there were a being without access to tacit knowledge, you couldn't really prove that they don't have access because they'd struggle to communicate it in exactly the same way a person with access to their feelings would.

Like "describe the color red" -> it is hot/warm vs it is lucky or romantic or "blue" -> it is cold vs it is suffocating like the ocean vs it is free like the sky.

literally copied and pasted the original title minus the exclamation point deliberately to desensaltionalize it.

inspired to re-find by recent HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48870381

Is this surprising given that it is nearly impossible to get >50% of people to agree on any one topic?

Consider the opening line:

"Imagine that you are having trouble with your in-laws... You ask ChatGPT... It tells you not to try to win them over. Keep a respectful distance..."

I know people who would disagree. I know people who would agree.

The article shows the same thing, that asking more than one source yields more than one response.

It's the age old joke/commentary: Ask 10 philosophers the same question and you'll get 11 different answers.

Airplanes do (did?) v16s and v24s as well, if memory serves.

There's also a build out there where someone did a "v12" vw beetle with a v6 for each axle.

All of that to just give up and offer none of the practical advice that already exists to address many of the issues.

Imagine the article were discussing human relations, pointed out all of these problems, and ended with "yeah, idk, revolution I guess" instead of concrete actions every single reader can take to improve their own lives.

just as we don’t fix climate change by individually eschewing plastic straws, we don’t fix our smartphones’ designed-in lack of trust by individually trying to spend a bit less time on Twitter.

Is such a copout. The suggestion is that everyone should just continue to suffer until some unknown future in which the government fixes it for us? If you believe plastic straws are harming your life, you find an alternative while campaigning for change. If you believe your phone is spying on you, you make it stop while campaigning for change.

If you really needed the exact specific time, you'd be wrong to trust a random analog watch anyway because you know how inaccurate they are given how much you care about time.

Your entire hostility is based on the assumption that I do know the actual time, which I usually don't because I don't live my life like that. I cannot handle either the anxiety of waiting until the last minute to do something or the friction of being upset in traffic or being perturbed over someone showing up "five minutes late when they damn well knew the meeting was at WX:YZ" or whatever.

I am almost always early, and can't remember the last time I was late, but I don't mind that at all because I am far more comfortable spending a few minutes meditating, gathering my thoughts, planning, etc in between events than acting like I'm speed running life.

My point was more referring to the many instances in which I know the person and the situation and know that the exact time is both irrelevant and not likely offered by my watch.

Do you live on the equator?

03:30 is anywhere from dead of night to nearly dawn for me. Similarly 15:30 is anywhere from near midday to near sundown.

"Well, surely some time has passed since I read it last...you weren't asking me what time it was the last time I checked, were you?"

Have you ever run in to issues sharing your interpretation?

Like, people ask me the time, I say "almost 11", and they insist "but what time is it rEallY" and it's like...it really is almost 11, if you required access to the information that it is 10:58, you'd have the access to determine that. There's no world in which you need to know when it is 10:58 and do not have the ability to determine that.

If you're asking, you need exactly the general read I just offered.

Page title: Tour de France Riders Trial Secretive New Lactate Energy Gels

is more accurate than the article title.

Article specifies several times that their trials are severely limitted to user reports. No indication of lab-controlled or blinded studies.

To be fair, that's the entire text of Wikipedia in multiple languages.