legacynl

That reading gives the capacity to gain a better understanding, doesn't mean that all readers use it that way. The act of reading itself doesn't make the people more willing to be more understanding. Someone who cannot read could have the same desire for understanding and might choose to engage that desire by talking to people in person. The fact that the latter doesn't read, doesn't make him less morally superior.

The only correlation that reading and intelligence have is that intelligent people find it easier to read, and therefore enjoy reading more, and therefore read more. It's not the other way around.

I hate these discussions on HN. Unless we first agree on what 'good' and 'bad' are, this question is basically nonsense. In any case, what you choose to do on your own in your free time has basically no moral or ethical impact whatsoever.

I think you can compare it to watching a movie. You won't recall at the end what color jacket the character was wearing, or what the name of the victim was, but you still get the movie. Even though the jacket-color might be significant in someway (like being the same color like the monster the character would become or something). It's normal and expected that a single viewing/reading will not give you all the insights.

Just like a movie, if I really like it, I could decide to read it again, and discover things I didn't get the first time around. But there is no requirement to spot every detail the first time.

I think constantly checking if you can recall the last paragraph is a bad habit. It not only requires mental effort, it also breaks your flow.

I have ADHD myself, and I advise you to always keep reading. Don't stop and think about what things meant, don't recall the important events at the end of a paragraph or chapter, none of that. Just keep reading.

If you really feel like you didn't 'get it', go back 3 chapters. But reread it without stopping.

I feel for this author. Not because of his attention span, but rather that his whole life has been lived trying to conform to someone else's ideals. Can't read in middle or high school because of what peers would think. Couldn't read in college for what his dad said that he should be doing. Can't read in your professional life because it's 'childish'. Now he feels 'obligated' to read because it's part of Bourdieauian ideals?

I think the author should take a long hard look at himself, and decide for himself what his ideals are that he wants to live by. Reading even though you don't like it isn't evidence of sophisitication, it is evidence of stupidity.

But isn't that user error? If you want to run a program that can read your current directory's contents and possibly upload that to the cloud, would you run that in a directory with your private keys?

Is it really?

Statistically I would assume that if you select a bunch of people on a certain criterium, you're going to see similarities related to that criterium among that group.

I don't know if it's a real screenshot at the bottom of OP (the blue on black icons), but that' hilarious if it is.

I'm a little bit less cynical about it; most police still live with the assumption that all of our allies are trustworthy. If the US says there is a credible threat, they rather exercise caution, and remove the threat.

It's just that the US cannot be trusted anymore, and this will probably be the moment that Belgian police will stop taking US intel as fact.

It's common-sense, not an OPINION to deport illegal immigrants

It's not though. More immigrants mean more people buying products, paying taxes on them, supporting local business, more people contributing to the economy in general. Another important factor is that most european populations are aging, meaning that the ratio of working people versus older people who stopped working, is reaching unsustainable levels. Without migrants, our economies will be seriously hampered.

Hopefully you understand that there's an obvious selection bias you encounter when talking to folks from NL or DE in California. Ofc the people that moved will think there's a good reason for them moving. But people who live here have good reasons for staying here.

You're false. Research has shown that if people like sound A, they will like it even better when you play sound A louder.

The change in mixing and mastering can be largely explained by people changing the way they consume it. Eg. people watch more movies on netflix than in a cinema. People used to sit in a room with a record player, now they listen in their car or headphones while doing other stuff.

Perhaps I'm playing advocate of the devil here:

But does the fact that you have preconceived expectations about 'try for free' necessarily mean that a business offering 'try for free' has to meet all those expectations?

Technically 'try for free' can mean anything, and I'm pretty sure that they have declared it somewhere (perhaps in the terms & conditions that people just agree to). Isn't it up to the business to do their due dilligence about the services they get from vendors?

Personally I think they've exploited the expectations everybody have about 'try for free', and they're morally wrong for that. But I'm pretty sure that morals never come into play when it comes to (US) business, so I wonder if we can really fault a company for doing whatever is legally allowed?

Did you ever click 'report broken website' button? It's there specifically for those cases.

ah yes the browser that uses your pc to mine crypto is the answer.

True. The body is perfectly capable of telling you when it needs water, it's called being thirsty. If you're thirsty, drink, otherwise don't.

those sanctions failed to target Stark’s remaining connection to the Internet — an Internet service provider based in the Netherlands called MIRhosting.

The fuck, i walk past the office of mirhosting every day

"hey, i have this add on that changes how websites are displayed, and I just wanted to let you know that my changes to your website break the site! Thanks"

It basically functions the same way as gambling machines. There's a hook that gets people to play, and then the game itself uses psychological techniques to keep people playing, like increasing the time between payouts (or level ups).

ah my bad. You're right, the author specifically states 'OPEN CTFs'. I think that keyword slipped my mind by the time I was at the end of the article.

So my question then becomes, what will realistically be lost if CTFs move to a form that requires teams and individuals to sign up?

Rules that ask people not to use LLMs are ignored and almost impossible to enforce in open online events.

That's such a non-reason. If your competition cannot enforce the rules of the competition, then what's the point? Does the CTFs specifically need to be 'open'?

The issue was never that AI could help. CTF players have always used tools. [...] Teams that refused to use AI were not just missing a convenience; they were playing a slower version of the competition.

So the obvious solution is to fully ban AI and AI generated tools? To destroy your own hobby just because AI can semantically be considered a tool, seems very stupid to me. If the point of these CTFs is to practice and measure your skill, what becomes the point of the competition once everyone uses AI?

I've heard online from (American) immigrants to the Netherlands that Dutch life can seem pretty boring. But I think this just signifies a major cultural difference between the US and other more traditional cultures.

For a dutch person (and I suspect many other countries), life is not measured in the amount of 'cool' stuff you have or do. To me life is about friends, family, health and purpose. If I have that, I'm perfectly happy for every week to be the same as the last, for the rest of my life.

Mozilla is always looking for new revenue, how likely is it that Anthropic payed for this article?

I hate it when 'smart' people say dumb stuff like this. This feels in the same vein to that one time that Neil Degrasse Tyson said academic fields like philosophy and history are useless. Pure arrogance leading them to belief that whatever drivel comes out of their mouths is correct.

China, The US, and India all turned down invites despite generating 34%, 12%, and 7.6% of global emissions respectively [0]

Perhaps this is for the best? I assume if they did intend they would be mostly saying 'no' to everything?

Now things might get actually accepted by willing participants, which might allow it to snowball and gain traction, which might convince one of those 3 to join at a later date.

The human brain doesn't have "a lot of" inputs, but rather infinite inputs.

That's not true though. It's 'a lot', not infinite. Not everything affects the output that our brain produces.

As far as we're currently aware the brain IS deterministic. If you were able to perfectly duplicate a brain and it's environment/state, the resulting output of that brain will always be the same.

It's turtles all the way down.

remain concious until the latest stages of their disease.

Are you saying that people with advanced Alzheimers lose consciousness? That's not the case. Although it might become hard for people with advanced Alzheimers to demonstrate their consciousness, that doesn't mean that their consciousness isn't there.

Yep and so far it looks like the issue with the meta case is they didnt pay for the book. Not that they used it in training data.

Let's not sane-wash what they did here, they didn't just 'forgot to pay for the books', they deliberately and illegally downloaded and used material that wasn't theirs to use.

If you or I did that, we would be jailed or sued into destitution. In a fair world we either should change copyright laws (allowing for anyone to freely pirate all media), or Zuckerberg needs to go to jail.