HN user
But you can do away with all that messiness of all that exchange and just have AI micromanage the economy. AI should be able to figure out how much to produce, how to limit waste, who should get what, etc. in a very fair and efficient manner.
Might want to think that through again. I recommend this SG Atlantis episode: https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/Poisoning_the_Well
I would say that it is more likely than not that a graphics card exhibits some form of consciousness. But I am a panpsychist, I believe an individual atom has some form of consciousness.
Fair enough point. But then I guess you'd also say that a piece of silicon or sand exhibits some form of consciousness. I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about the potential of LLMs (the algorithm) being conscious or somehow developing consciousness?
It's a pointless debate in a scientific, left brain sense. Who can prove that you aren't the only consciousness in the universe and you are basically dreaming your experimental results up? Experimental verifications exist only in a limited scope.
If your argument is that matter brings about consciousness somehow and therefore LLMs can in principle be conscious, that's as good as claiming the opposite. There's no experiment that can falsify either.
As a being that knows what consciousness is intuitively, you already know that a graphics card is most likely not conscious.
When the consciousness itself not understood and well defined in the first place, it is pretty pointless to debate if something is or isn't conscious.
That's like saying if matter itself is not understood and well defined (which it isn't) in the first place, it is pretty pointless to debate if jumping from a skyscraper is or is not deadly.
A lot of practical aspects of life do not need to be properly defined as long as I can reasonably assume that your experience is similar to mine as a human being. Attributing that to a graphics card computing the next token deserves to be scrutinized.
blocking a door for a few minutes. Or betting against many trains and throwing a hopefully fake body onto a busy line.
Not necessary. If you just bet against them being punctual always, you'll have a 80% plus success rate.
And centralization is ineffective long term
The problem is, even as you ignore the internet, it goes on without you, and yet your ignoring it doesn't make you immune to it.
I recently moved and had a lot on my list in real life generally for about six to nine months. I stopped using the internet as I did before because I simply didn't have time. I primarily used it to order stuff for the new house and to do my professional work. No podcasts, no YT videos, no news articles, no social media. I even stopped watching the news completely.
Guess what? Nothing happened other than me feeling a lot better. I didn't miss out on anything as far as I know. Instead, I forgot about all the bullsh*t that's not even real. Let's be honest. Most of the stuff on social media is completely made up or has a core of truth but is completely blown out of proportion to get attention.
A couple of times a coworker told me about how scary the news were and that they are afraid something bad will happen soon. I just said: "Ah, it's probably not going to be that bad." And guess what? It wasn't that bad. I never heard of it again afterwards.
The internet will move on without you and you don't have to be immune to it. You can just move on without it. Use it for what you need and try to make it as hard as possible for it to use you.
The amount of DRM and locking down Amazon bolts onto its ereaders and ebook formats feels insane to me. I can understand the profit motive but god damn.
I don't. I would be much happier buying ebooks without DRM and I would buy substantially more of them if they were DRM-free.
"Apple Intelligence" meant whatever Apple marketing wants it to be. Now "GPT 5" is also a marketing term. You are paying for the abstracted experience and brand. Not a specific model or defined capabilities anymore.
Seems like an apples to oranges comparison (pun not intended). The term Apple Intelligence was introduced for the new service/product. GPT<n> has a history of standing for something (a specific model).
I didn't try it yet, but it seems you should be able to do that via their GitHub repo: https://github.com/nazdridoy/kokoro-tts
Parent asked why it's not a good proxy measure for reliability. You admit that it isn't.
Yes, TÜV does not assess reliability of a car, but road-worthiness
So, great - that's all I tried to say to start with.
Now enjoy your smear campaign!
Oh, wow - as soon as real information is required, you pull out. Didn't expect anything else.
If that's the case, then please cite reliable sources about the exact issues that occur and what Tesla did or did not do to mitigate them or let them slip.
If you'd have those, you could have posted them earlier here in the thread.
I just take note what companies do
No. You are obviously not doing that. You take note of what the media emphasizes in an obvious press campaign that oversimplifies the actual information to a degree where it becomes borderline useless in order to reach political goals. This is not the same.
You can mark whatever you want with your bright and bold marker. It doesn't make your argument more sound.
If you are worried about the brakes, brake hard occasionally to avoid rust.
Alternatively, you can charge the car up to near 100% if you go on a roadtrip. Regen will be limited initially so you will be able to use your brakes without braking hard.
If you are still worried about the brakes, go to an independent car mechanic regularly and have them checked.
It's as easy as that.
Nobody is preventing you from doing service even though it's not deemed necessary by the vendor.
Your comment doesn't seem to be about the actual issue but about some form of generalized Tesla brand hatred.
Look, HN people don't like Tesla. A lot of German people in positions of power don't like Tesla. Suddenly an article appears that explicitly highlights Tesla vehicles as not passing TÜV because they allegedly have quality issues. The article mentions no details. If you search for details on Google, you get a list of very similar looking articles all citing the same statement from a TÜV person. None of those provide any details on the actual issues. If no details are provided, the only thing to do is guess.
It's really quite clear what's going on here.
The TÜV does not assess the reliability of a car. The reasons for a car failing an inspection after 3 years can be manifold. It doesn't mean that the car "won't age well" or anything along those lines.
If you dislike Tesla, then say it - it's fine. No need to support vague smear campaigns.
In fact, right now Tesla has the best electric car technology available on the market. Along with the best charging network available on the market. And the best software (light years ahead of the competition) on the market. Also they don't require you to service the car for a long time. That makes German people especially afraid that they lose their car manufacturing, selling and servicing business. And rightly so. No smear campaign and no comparing apples to oranges will save them from reforming and restoring their competitiveness in a very long painful process.
My 25 year old car aces the test all the time
You wouldn't do a regular service right before the TÜV appointment, would you?
Also, this doesn't sound environmentally friendly to me.
If you translate the article and read it, you will find that there are a lot of reported issues with the headlights. It is hard to find exact information on the actual issue in detail, but I'd suspect it's about the calibration of the headlights in most cases. That's a minor issue and calling it a reliability problem doesn't seem accurate. Also quite conveniently, they don't really mention that Teslas have significantly more mileage on average than other electric cars when they have their first TÜV visit. It's common for the German press to blow things like these out of proportion when they don't like a brand.
Also there's things like these which are way too common for my taste: https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/adac-skandal-gelber-enge...
I think the German car industry and the press around it as a whole have a serious corruption issue.
I am sure HN has made up their mind already and this discussion wouldn't have an effect on your opinion anyway, so please feel free to continue downvoting.
Have you ever brought a car through the German TÜV?
This is about what cars made it through the German TÜV. Not about reliability.
What you describe sounds more like an attempt to classify aspects of the "Big 5" personality traits in some kind of binary system. Your "fact-based" persona seems to be low in agreeableness while the "story-based' is rather high in it (put very simplified).
Opt-in makes the data useless - not just in terms of the huge drop in quantity but because of the fact it introduces a huge bias in the data selected - the people that would opt-in are probably not a good sample of "typical users".
Why? I don't think that's obvious. It may also be related to the way the opt-in is presented. In general, I would expect this to be a workable solution. Even if the opt-in group deviates from the "typical user", it's the best data you can get in an honest and ethically sound way. This should certainly be better than no data at all?
For any website/app that presents an opt-in cookie consent banner this is implicitly already the case.
Well, nowhere wouldn't be that bad actually. At least, you wouldn't be that far from home. In practice, you go somewhere. But you usually end up in some place in the middle of nowhere in between your departure point and your destination. Also, it's freezing and the next train (which of course doesn't arrive on time) will be overloaded - that is, if you're lucky. Most of the time, there won't even be a train but a "replacement bus service" which commonly is a single small bus that about 200 people try to board simultaneously after they waited for about an hour and a half.
The whole torture is accompanied by awkward excuses like "unexpected staff shortage", "technical disruption", "signal repairs", or "delay due to earlier journey" which you can look at in an app that tends to not work while you wait and freeze.
Bonus: If all else fails, you can play "Bahn Bingo" while you reflect on the experience of your trip: https://www.bahnbingo.de/
The fact that you have passed audits isn't a guarantee (or even an indication) that you don't have major security vulnerabilities.
Please explain that to my IT department.
design tokens
styling hooks
You mean variables.
I don't get why the marketing speak is necessary. I also think it's detrimental to what we've built as engineers. Please stop. It's neither a token nor a hook, it's a simple variable.
early on their design maturity journey
I would argue that it's not in anyone's interest to add such kind of complexity when it's not needed.
What you describe sounds like a config dictionary. What benefit does it offer to standardize that for this very special (and probably rare) use case?
I don't know many companies that could actually have the problem of scaling a design change up to 50 apps, because most don't have 50 apps. But I would guess that those who actually have to solve this problem are staffed properly to implement a shared configuration for design parameters.
If you want such a hard dependency and kind of automation in this case is another question. I could imagine a lot of special cases where this would cause another set of issues with, e.g., accountability (which part of the codebase belongs to which maintainer and so on).
At a certain scale, design and brand teams need infrastructure to drive change
What does this mean?
Do you have a concrete example of where this actually solves a real problem? And what problem would that be?
In a market, scarce services will always be more valuable than abundant services. Assuming that AI will at some point be capable of replacing an SWE, to future-proof your career, you will need to learn how to provide services that AI cannot provide. Those might not be what SWEs currently usually offer.
I believe it's actually not that hard to predict what this might be:
1. Real human interaction, guidance and understanding: This, by definition, is impossible to replace with a system, unless the "system" itself is a human.
2. Programming languages will be required in the future as long as humans are expected to interface with machines and work in collaboration with other humans to produce products. In order to not lose control, people will need to understand the full chain of experience required to go from junior SWE to senior SWE - and beyond. Maybe less people will be required to produce more products but still, they will be required as long as humanity doesn't decide to give up control over basically any product that involves software (which will very likely be almost all products).
3. The market will get bigger and bigger to the point where nothing really works without software anymore. Software will most likely be even more important to have a unique selling point than it is now.
4. Moving to a higher level of understanding of how to adapt and learn is beneficial for any individual and actually might be one of the biggest jumps in personal development. This is worth a lot for your career.
5. The current state of software development in most companies that I know has reached a point where I find it actually desirable for change to occur. SWE should improve as a whole. It can do better than Agile for sure. Maybe it's time to "grow up" as a profession.
Please explain for international audiences :)