me-vs-cat

Despite your assumptions, you should realize all I said was that government representatives should care about the topic and have something to say.

It is responsive to your question on why the government should have something to say about price negotiations between producers and retailers of frozen pizzas.

Lax RPA enforcement may have significantly contributed to food deserts. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/12/food-deser...

I hope government representatives have things to say about that.

Cover charge for a shoe store is an interesting idea. I hate shopping, especially with crowds, and probably wouldn't mind, especially if it went towards a purchase, even partially. (This willingness is learned, probably only true for me since my 30s, and not strictly correlated to my income bracket.)

I often buy gas at the BP with a $0.03/gal higher price than the Shell across the street. Guess which one has a longer line more full of gas guzzlers.

Yet absolute price per GB isn't the full story when the popular tools accessible for the general public require more RAM for the same task today as compared to the past. You won't get far using the latest version of MS Word on a desktop with specs from 1999, or running MS Word 97 to edit academic essays turned this year.

Even for background services, rather than the general public, I would not attempt running an email server with the same RAM as I used in the 90s, 00s, or 10s.

this isnt putting a quarter in a machine. thats what we already have today.

What have I missed where I can, today, feasibly pay $0.25 at a time, online, regardless of other factors such as privacy, without putting down a larger balance at a time from which $0.25 is deducted?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant, but not definitive.

There aren't three different dashes. Unicode 15.0, table 6-3 (Unicode Dash Characters) lists 25 different dashes. https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/ch06.pdf#G612...

You get used to it. I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde.. brunette.. redhead.

I disagree that the berating example is in any substantial way similar to whistleblowing.

I believe we are more on the same page than not, but I caution you to more closely evaluate an employee's obligations on how and when they speak about their employer, whether in public or where there's a chance of private speaking becoming public, regardless of the name or persona used.

I include whistleblowing, because some whistleblowing is not legally protected and, from an employment perspective, some whistleblowing requires that certain steps were first attempted or considered.

I've had to do that re-evaluation myself, from the employer side, and it changed my mind in some ways, even from my perspective as an employee.

(This sounds one sided only because we're not bringing up any employer obligations. I'm not in HR, but that re-evaluation more firmly entrenched my belief that HR is often a necessary evil.)

Compared to current age verification laws, I agree that a self-declared header would be better both technically and socially. Parenting is daunting for the vast majority (including myself), and that solution would make it easier for parents to supervise their children, but I strongly disagree it's unrealistic to generally do so today.

I should be able to even berate my employer, as long as I'm not doing it from a persona that's directly tied to my employer e.g. my real name or git handle etc. They might not like it, but they sure as shit shouldn't be able to fire me for it.

There are many things you should be able to do publicly without repercussion from your employer. However, your example is berating them, and I'm taking that literally: "to criticize in an angry manner".

If I read this correctly, then you believe your employer should be able to fire you if you angrily criticize them in public under your name. I agree in principle, that could damage their trust in your ability to do your job. Depending on specifics, that damage could be enough to justify firing you.

I don't understand why doing so anonymously should change the potential damage to their trust in you, if they later learn you said what you did.

From https://swipe.futo.tech/:

The ContextLM model is a very small language model that is trained for a single language. It's used to improve the quality of predictions by eliminating nonsensical words given the preceding words in the sentence. It only requires text data for training.

What do you mean by "active parenting", and why is it unrealistic?

(Do you mean something specific like HHS' Active Parenting™? https://preventionservices.acf.hhs.gov/programs/744/show )

Have you looked at which sections of the constitution say "citizen" and which say "person"?

Over forty thousand people die every year in the US from car accidents.

If a single company was solely responsible for car accidents causing that many deaths in as short a time as this, the consequences would be severe.

What? You can't give access to that kind of power to just anyone with $5,000/month.

These people should be trained and licensed before they get access. Thankfully, Anthropic has worked with regulators to develop the appropriate courses to maintain your license -- don't worry, the series is cheap when you buy all up through OT XVII. And because Anthropic has been approved as Security Overseer, we will take care of reporting back to the license bureau on our monitoring of your work to ensure you meet your ongoing license responsibilities and are able to keep your license.

Which regulators? You know, the new agency led by several of our former mid-level executives. With relationships like that, we were honored to lead the Industry Coalition that donated the final-draft regulations.

Elder? Just look here, I'm too young to be called that nonsense, and get off my lawn.

Commander TACO isn't a reference to CmdrTaco from Slashdot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out

What you're describing applies to coffee shops where a latte has the same amount of coffee regardless of the cup size.

Others are mostly describing someone who makes coffee for themself at home or in a break room. That person likely chooses a cup size depending on how much they coffee they want, how frequently they want a refill, etc.

Novel obfuscation, with a novel idea, is hard to invent. Novel obfuscation, where it is only new to that codebase, is easy(ier) to flag as suspicious.

While bad actors would be wise to ensure low-cooldown users are unaware, I would not say they can "simply" ensure that.

Code with any obfuscation that evades static analysis should become more suspicious in general. That's a win for users.

A longer window of time for outside researchers is a win for users -- unless the release fixes existing problems.

What we need is allowing the user to easily change from implicitly trusting only the publisher to incorporate third parties. Any of those can be compromised, but users would be better served when a malicious release must either (1) compromise multiple independent parties or (2) compromise the publisher with an exploit undetectable during cooldown.

Any individual user can independently do that now, but it's so incredibly time-consuming that only large organizations even attempt it.

No, it doesn't require a battery door, even for phones that don't meet the exception you mentioned.

Over a decade ago, I replaced a phone screen over a few hours, involving a couple dozen screws. During that, I had to remove the battery. (Replacing only the battery would have been easier.) I'm a layman, and all the screws were Phillips. That's sufficient to be replaceable.

Being replaceable does not require a battery door.

Yet your earlier comment said "200x-$currentYear" not "200x-$modifiedYear" in reply to someone automatically inserting the year. That shows a misunderstanding of copyright AND an intent to mislead when you believe others view it as last updated.

You're better off omitting it entirely in generated web pages. No one cares unless they don't understand copyright, the year shown isn't the current year, and they're already looking to find fault. In other words, for those that treat it as last updated, they must already be struggling to find value when they scroll to your copyright notice, and at that point, after feeling the page looks stale, is seeing the current year going to change their mind?

That doesn't look off.

What looks off is showing you don't know how copyright works by blindly putting the current year.

You're right that the notice is effectively useless for such web pages. And if it doesn't matter, then why bother to put anything?

For videos with either kid gloves or being completely blasted, there's a reason those are the videos that go viral, and it's not because they're the typical average.

[Letting someone they think is impaired drive off is] what the "soft" approach is all about. [...] But in no case should a cop let someone drive off that they suspect isn't fully sober.

You are reading more into the vague "softly" term than is present in this thread, instead of "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The options aren't soft vs violent.

That there is a spectrum instead of a binary choice is what I discussed, though maybe it's a regional language quirk: "What's stupid about using a soft[er] approach, instead of a [more] violent approach..."

What's stupid about using a soft approach, instead of a violent approach, to take away a driver's license from a drunk driver?

Why do police so frequently resort to violence that you're probably not surprised to hear bystanders in NYC were shot by cops pursuing a subway turnstile hopper? Let the implications of that sink in for a moment.

Why have I heard so many times about people losing their life after being pulled over for speeding?

The cops that pull them over always treat them in the softest and most deferential way imaginable.

Without denying I have seen preferential treatment first-hand, you might take a step back and imagine...

You're dealing with someone who entered a career known for its machismo, where they received training on how to use physical violence, including training on shooting a weapon that could quite possibly be with them. This person has been drinking or is flat-out drunk, and it's only a matter of minutes before they realize how screwed they're about to be.

Treating them softly is what you SHOULD do.

We should be asking whether we are content to find ourselves in a world where that soft approach is considered the noteworthy exception.