mrmetanoia

It's always both, the people willing to pay someone to make things worse, and the people willing to take the money to do it.

Oh thank you!

This article existing strikes me as a sign its at least in some context a fad. If someone uses a tool, in this case vintage digicams i guess, to make a piece of art and the use of the tool comes through as part of the statement it was in that context an artistic statement. If they're using it to make nothing and just bought it because they saw someone else using it and found it novel, seems like they got caught in the fad.

Stomping your feet and telling me why it's not a fad is very fad behavior.

https://www.photorobot.com/robots

Looks like maybe different configurations based on customer needs?

Hedging your bets some will die before they get it/all of it? Keeping your employees sustained while also not giving them enough immediate overhead for creating any kind of wealth?

I'm not serious, these are just the first cynical thoughts that came to mind, but I feel like this question should be one we can actually answer? We've had both pensions and time to see varying degrees of successes and failures regarding them.

This is not my impression of how things generally go with China.

"Another reason why the Capitol and the White House wouldn’t want to see Intel fail is because it’s one of America’s top exporters, with its export revenue in 2023 exceeding $40 billion."

The capitalist class are the fucking NY Yankees of the world - never has so little been done with so much. What a bunch of greedy idiots running shit into the ground.

Me too! It's my go-to large text file manipulator. It's also what I keep open all the time to paste things into since it's so easy to open a new tab and it keeps temp files of things i haven't saved until i've closed them and told it I don't want them saved, so it opens up with a decent history of crap I've been using until I'm ready to clear it.

"...allow us to lead fairly rich lives outside of Warcraft."

I didn't get the impression from the article it was otherwise, just that this young man found what he was looking for inside a game and its community. The article felt positive, your comment feels defensive and judgemental.

Their marketing hyperbole has cheapened much of the language around AI, so naturally it excites someone who writes like the disciple of the techno-prophets

" High-intelligence AGI is the last human invention" What? I could certainly see all kinds of entertaining arguments for this, but to write it so matter of fact was cringe inducing.

I think the difference is people on HN are using these "AI" tools as coding assistance. For which, if you know what you're doing, they are pretty useful. They save trips to stack overflow or documentation diving and can spit out code that often is less time to fix/customize than it would have been to write. Cool.

A lot of the rest of the world are using it for other things. And at these other things, the results are less impressive. If you've had to correct a family member who got the wrong idea from whatever chat bot they asked, if you've ever had to point out the trash writing in an email someone just trusted AI to write on their behalf before it got sent to someone that mattered, or if you've ever just spent any amount of time on twitter with grok users, you should be exceptionally and profoundly aware of how unimpressive AI is for the rest of the world.

I feel we need less people complaining about the skepticism on HN and more people who understand these skeptics that hang out here already know how wonderful a productivity boost you're getting from the thing they're rightly skeptical about. Countering with "But my code productivity is up!" is next to useless information on this site.

I wish I didn't have to be so negative because these are cool, but it's Facebook. Surveillance and ad tech that cause brain rot are what they do for a living. At this point they could just sell versions of these products that aren't subsidized by evil, and they still choose not to do so. This means no matter how much they talk about the future of AI being open, no matter how nice their AR glasses are, I can't do business with them. Everything facebook does is burdened by being facebook and I for one am glad at least one demographic won't let them forget it.

Read it again slower ;) There's no outrage, and there's no us vs them. unless you identify personally with greed. I never thought of greed as a 'them' - are you a greed?

I often have to remind myself who hosts this board and that I am hanging out on a site for successful and aspiring techno-robber-barons.

It would be wonderful if the staff report recommendations were taken seriously by our legislators. I think I'll send a copy of this to my reps and say hi.

It seems we go astray when we start defining and evangelizing things that may have worked for some group of people to push them on others.

Somewhere in all this process stuff, I see maybe what some teams were doing but I doubt it was as rigid and I doubt they indulged in it when it made no sense. Once these teams or people are asked what they're doing right - it eventually gets defined into rules and then evangelized to people made to feel they can't deviate or improvise when the framework makes no sense. "Trust the process."

So people start wasting their time going through the process rather than using the process as a framework/tool for getting things done, they 'do' the process.

Their job is standup, their job is scrum, tickets, and points, and as a result their job is only marginally to do the things that need doing.

Company's might take more issue with this inefficiency if the workforce didn't double as something to manipulate pre and post head/tailwind to make the stock rise.

This site has a lot of interesting people that did and do interesting "hacker" type things that keep me coming back, but a lot of commenting is people looking to build things of questionable value, legality, or social good and sell them off and gtfo before the cracks show.

Less "Hacker" More "Greed via Computer" So the idea that they aren't bothered by Mr Beast's lack of integrity is because they too find deceit acceptable so long as they profit. Because, someone else before him did, so why shouldn't he? It's toxic greed all the way down in this view.

the bizarre social Darwinism nonsense that permeates the internet has done a nice job of taking this antisocial mindset - passersby at a glance recognize it quite rightly as the ideology of the asshole - and rebranded it as 'smart' and a mere recognition of the 'real world' (much to the confusion of people succeeding and enjoying the company of others doing so without robbing one another)

I agree. We have to raise our personal standards to raise our community standards. The nihilism here is a self fulfilling prophecy and sad to see.

https://www.foodindustry.com/articles/list-of-direct-to-cons...

Looks like several exist.

It really is a difficult thing to heal and a difficult thing to know when you've healed. Same with grief. And you're right it takes - relative to our lifespan - a rather long time to start to see yourself again.

You really do have to protect yourself. I think at some point I felt like if I set boundaries I'd get fired, then I realized if I didn't set boundaries I'd go insane which seemed worse than fired so I started telling people "no," and logging off on time. It's been an improvement.

"Will the fight for our sanity, be the fight of our lives?" - flaming lips

I agree, Tim Sweeney sucks. It was still an interesting interview.

This is like someone turned the volume down in my brain. I had not seen this, very cool.

Yes! It reminds me of when electronic music, which went through a similar inquisition. I recall bjork at one point saying if the person behind the computers puts their soul into it it will have soul.

Something about this article just felt like a kind of gatekeeping in hopes that they can convince people its not worth even trying.

In my mind no - because it was hardly concerned with looking at what artists are producing with AI and why its interesting or not interesting, and felt much more concerned with just putting a stop to something it doesn't care for. Which seems anti-creative in a way.

I love articles that tell me why something they can't know is something they like to guess at anyway. This is pointless. Art will get made. Artists will use AI to make some of it. The debate about whether or not its art will be part of the art. This article is not part of anything, it's just throwing punches at air in a tantrum.

this warmed my frigid heart. so glad to see this sort of curious spirit endures :)

This is some serious mental gymnastics, dude.

"It wasn't a big thing" - how do you know? You do not. A group of people ask for a place at the table and you and your ilk question their legitimacy as human beings - that's what you're doing. People are saying "I feel this way, I am this way, I see others who feel like me and and feel empowered to come forward and live as the person I feel I am"

And your response is 'it's a phase' - like their identity is a fidget spinner. Nothing is being lost or endangered by making trans people feel welcome and valid and allowing them to pursue treatments that make them happier.

The topic is not taboo. What's taboo is invalidating the lives and existence of other human beings just finding a voice and a place in the world and figuring it out. After all if it's a phase, or a social contagion, it'll blow by and you can relax - but the amount of effort going in to making these people feel scrutinized and unwelcome doesn't seem like that's the point at all.

Amusing that you patronize corporate security for not totally understanding what you were doing, but couldn't deduce tunneling home to grab your data exfiltration - i mean migration - scripts might not be kosher with security.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/01/jan-morris-thi...

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

Here's a couple from more than a 'few' years ago. And you can go continue back in time and find more examples. Data has not supported the social contagion claim. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-undermin...