lern_too_spel

The other frontier labs are of course pre-training their next major versions, but they have no reason to pre-announce because they aren't so far behind.

Progress in scientific fields is limited by how fast you can perform experiments. Most areas of math are limited only by the number of practitioners.

Some things are categorically false, and those conclusions can be reached rationally. That seemed to be his only point, and he did not say anything about preventing anyone (like Carroll's Queen of Hearts) from believing six impossible things before breakfast. That would be authoritarian.

In a democracy like ours, stopping the Queen and others from enacting restrictive and harmful policy based on impossibilities only requires convincing arguments. People are still perfectly free to believe in Creationism, but convincing arguments have removed it from curricula.

Private domains aren't really private because they can be matched across data leaks. Fine for tracking senders though.

He said nothing about forcing. Suppose the false belief he was talking about was Creationism. Does his comment read as authoritarian?

The Mac brand is already associated with Apple zealots, and they don't seem to care about that, so that's obviously not it. It's more that Jobs personally didn't care for games. He put an end to Pippin and Game Sprockets as soon as he returned. Now there's still some inertia against gaming, but if they can figure out how to make money off gamers, they'll be more than happy to.

That's most of Stephenson's books. 90% world building and then 10% story at the end.

I tried Antigravity recently with Flash 3.5, and it got stuck in a loop saying the same sentence over and over. I haven't seen this pathological behavior from other LLMs in months.

He was awarded the Prize in 2025 for his work on MOFs. I assume this old article was posted because of https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02143-x.

The German implementation already allows it. The GitHub issue you linked to explains multiple times that it is a reference implementation, as have several previous HN comment threads linking to this page. It is not the actual implementation that any country plans to use.

It's why smart government created USDS, to clean up the mess left by contractors who set up the original healthcare.gov by having competent people work directly for the federal government. USDS was replaced with the incompetent DOGE (now US DOGE Service) and then completely shut down due to the new organization's incompetence.

You're right. Private launches are undertaxed. Launch cost used to be so prohibitive that it didn't matter, but regulation hasn't kept up.

All the corporations buying inputs for their products and services and all the people on unemployment.

You're saying if someone offered you a billion dollars to launch a satellite no different from most other satellites already in space, you would say, "No, thank you, madam!" I'm skeptical, but if you insist, I'll take you at your word.

I already told you that their incentives are wrong. Meanwhile, the people training the elite in any field use computers extensively and have been doing so for years.

One sentence summary of the bull case: Anything you would have paid a human to do, you will pay an AI to do instead.

Studies consistently show declines in every trackable metric associated with education when computational devices are introduced to the process.

They're doing it wrong, just as the incentives in the classroom are wrong (to increase a number showing how many children meet some artificially low standard of competency). The rational debate comes from the hundreds of people who are doing it right on their own. These days, all the top chess players practice with an engine. All the top mathletes use AoPS tools. It's the same across every academic field, and the level at which the top is performing is far beyond what it was before computers were introduced. The amount of effort it would take to teach a barely two year old to read is far beyond what most parents have to give, but with an electronic device patiently saying letter sounds whenever an infant interacts with letters, it's trivial.

The aforementioned people who revolutionized their fields are the demonstrated benefits. If we're going to stop a technology that could multiply that before it even gets to testing, it shouldn't be done on vibes.

As long as the externalities are paid for, I don't see the problem. Musk has made the world a worse place in many ways, but I don't see how this is one of them.

We should do it because of the huge benefits to society. The fact that it is easier than doing something with marginal benefit is why we should do it first.

It does not follow that anything produced by an electronic computational device is bad for children or society. I've personally seen computers teach children barely two years old to read.

Nobody has tried to systematically apply AI tutoring for adults. AI tutoring for children is easier because there are more people who understand the domains that need to be taught to children and can evaluate if the children have grasped the concepts appropriately.

It is clear that a personal human tutor can achieve incredible results, and almost everybody who has revolutionized any field you might think of is a product of such a system. Scaling that would be immensely valuable to society.

To make my earlier critique of your argument clearer, some applications of AI might be bad for society, but it does not follow that the tutoring application is also bad for society.

Can Android OEMs, bundling Google Mobile Services for Android certification, choose different trust roots for verification?

They can already install additional system app stores, so it would surprise me if they can't allow additional verifiers.

Isn't it partly for making malware distribution more traceable

Enabling developer mode does not make malware distribution more traceable.

Yes. That doesn't change. The only thing ADV changes is that it adds another way to distribute apps that can be installed without a warning.

Only children want to read social media threads without logging in?

Zuckerberg never had scruples, and everyone knew that from the start.

This is no different from before. If you want consumers to be able to install your app without a warning on Google builds, you have to jump through verification hoops. The only thing that ADV changes for developers is that now they can distribute their apps outside the system app stores without a warning as well, which is a new benefit, not a new restriction.

The correct thing to complain about is requiring developer mode for unverified installs, which doesn't seem necessary, not ADV. If you complain about ADV, of course the legislators are going to ignore you. ADV makes Google builds strictly more open and resolves the complaints of the state.

No, you're still allowed to install whatever apps you want, whether they're verified or not, from the system app stores or not. What developer verification brings is the ability to install apps outside the system app stores without a warning, as required by the antitrust judgment against Google.

People here are complaining about a separate thing, which is that the process for installing an app outside a blessed way is changing, becoming harder for the first such installation and easier for subsequent installations on new devices.

Security is GrapheneOS's raison d'être. If you don't want security, you can run another Android build that does run on the hardware you have.