NikolaNovak

What are the kind of details that emerge in satellite reign?

I was a kickstarter supporter, having played syndicate in childhood, but remember bouncing about 1-2hrs in, mostly because it felt bland, but would love to hear if the world and action becomes more involved :).

Not sure if there's anything quite like Sacrifice, which to be fair was an interesting blend rather than a wholly unique game play like dune 2.

I would've assumed it's small scale laundering. What you're saying is it may just be a very cheeky and brazen sales tactic? "Doesn't hurt to try"...

#20 indicates "breaking rapport with body language" which I interpreted as looking away, shifty, crossing arms, standing at angle, fidgeting, and other behaviours neurotypicals may construe or indicate as not paying attention. In other bullet points, I think it broadly means non-paralelizing or non-matching behaviour - different energy levels, volume, disagreements, different humour vs seriousness levels, etc.

See my root-level comment about potentially different behaviour and semantics for neurodivergent :).

These are excellent notes for neurotypical people, particularly those who are extrovert or can mask / fake it without undue cost :)

Addendum rather than correction - neurodivergent and or introvert behaviour may differ - I'm AuDHD and e.g. "body language breaking rapport" doesn't mean I'm no longer interested and neither does "shifting eyes" -- that's my default behaviour which takes extreme amount of unsustainable energy to break for short targeted periods of time -- if my body language are engaged and I'm looking in your eyes, I'm probably not hearing what you're saying as all my CPU cycles are peak multithreading to control my body :).

I think the list is like PMP - read, then evaluate customize and implement portions as feasible for your specific situation.

The basics of PalmOS were fairly touch oriented but resistive rather than capacitive, which made a difference usability wise. Menus though could get desktop-y.

I think the big diff was assumption of handwriting as the UI. Latter palm treo had a keyboard like blackberry, I used several generations of those before trying the HTC g1 :).

Out of curiosity, which part of the world are you in?

While agreeing that every side and compass orientation has conspiracy theories and ragebait, here in North America the right / Conservatives are foaming-at-the-mouth livid at the (real, Perceived, or mixed) wokeness / communism / liberallness of "mainstream media".

In this neck of the woods, the sentence "right has learned to tolerate different opinions they find offensive" isn't even hilariously wrong, it's tragically, despairngly, painfully bizarre :-(.

>> Why are you engaging sincerely on a platform created for boot licking?

I think that's Kink.com :)

>> "OpenFatigue being a real concern here."

OpenConcern.

But at least it's better than Concern.net or iConcern, or even eConcern.

Let's not forget Digital Concern, ConcernCloud. And my least favourite, Concern On BlockChain.

Oh man, I hate my area has switched to Facebook marketplace over Kijiji or even craigslist.

Even when an ad exists with EXACT obscure model I'm looking for... It spits out pages of unrelated or semi related garbage before it may or may not show me what I'm actually looking for :-(

Quotes, slashes, nothing seems to work. So I'm with you! Sometimes I just want an exact literal search.

Thinkpads are saying hello :)

Not to turn this into a Web fight or anything, but come on... Even my t420S from 2011 could be upgraded with ssd and more ram and is still used :). My daily driver is t480, 8 years old, my wive's x1 carbon 7 years old, with no intention of retiring either anytime soon.

The notion of Apple, of all companies, "setting standard for long span devices", is laughable to me as I look at my ipads no longer running old software I paid for and getting slower with every forced update.

Apple makes sexy devices that match many people's requirements. Good on them! But this continued notion they invented everything is grating.

</old grouchy man's rant finished> :-)

Too late to edit, but - all of that was before I read the openai / hugging face kerfuffle.

If openai cannot contain it's own agentic ai, it's pure hubris to think I can give it access to a mailbox and bank account and be safe about it :)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/inside-openai-hack-o...

Good morning!

It is possible you replied before my edit to clarify - it's not necessarily a "never" thing, I rarely do universal / categorical negatives, but it's a strong "not right now" :)

Agree that life is risky. My threshold, due to life experiences and events, is low - to your point, I took numerous advanced and safety driving courses to lower the risk. I rode motorcycles, a fundamentally luxurious and risky endeavour, but again very mindfully to mitigate risks with education, practices, and vigilance.

For context perhaps - I'm a Oracle Certified AI professional, and have some other minor badges and certs on copilot studio and ibm Watson etc, currently leading implementation of AI on our very very very traditional ERP project (and it's an uphill battle! Everybody else is even / way more conservative than me! :-). I see tremendous, careful, opportunities for LLMs. In daily life, learning French or music theory for example, LLMS are brilliant and patient tutors.

But for me, the risk of giving LLM unbounded access to my mailbox or bank, where upper bound of risk is infinite, is not currently balanced by any such advantage.

Other people with higher risk will engage and be appropriately rewarded for their risk tolerance - such is life :)

As I said, my knowledge is very superficial - my background is relational databases and old school system administration, without much mathematical background since 3rd year linear algebra :-)

Fundamentally, LLMS are statistical and not deterministic. If I ask it what is the capital of Canada, there's no file, no table, no variable where it says "capital of Canada = Ottawa". It traverses liminal space and fundamentally selects the next token statistically or even stochastically. Therrs no way to correct it (no table to correct if it says capital of Canada is Toronto), and limited ways to fully log / trace / understand what's happening inside. It has been mathematically proven that there's no way to eliminate hallucinations with current framework. And prompt guardrails are best wishes.

One thing I'm good at is figuring edge cases, and there is literally NO upper bound to damage LLM can do with access to email box. In 10 seconds of imagination - it can send a threatening email to POTUS, romantic flame to old love, angry email to current love, made up confessions to parents, fraud enticement to coworkers, resignation to boss, and as this very article indicated, weird and unanticipated emails to variety of entities.

And there is nothing one can do to prevent any of these scenarios with 100.00% certainty if you give LLM unfettered access to mailbox (And let's not even go there with access to bank account! :O)

Is my limited understanding :)

Edit / PS: I am not saying never, I just don't currently see any effective guardrails that meet my risk appetite thresholds. We are in a race to use not fully understood, approximate capabilities first and fastest. In large percentage of cases it works great. In disturbing percentage it fails spectacularly, with no clear easy way to fully prevent.

The cyberpunk dystopian agentic future we live in is fascinating to me.

I use LLM daily, did since gpt 3.5, but still in a very conservative, controlled mode. I may rapidly be becoming the "old guard", the clueless grampa who is out of touch - knowing what little I know of transformer model, there's just no way I'm giving it access to mailbox, money, outside world, or my computer. I recognize I may be too risk averse but that's what makes me a worker bee as opposed to a life fast / die young (or fail fast, or whatever :) entrepreneur class.

Isn't tanning basically body's reaction to cellular damage? It reduces further damage but that's due to damage done?

(It's largely irrelevant to myself, I pretty much burn immediately and don't / can't really tan, but my wife and her family tan well).

I gave up half way through. There was a lack of direction (for me) and too many permutations of clicks, characters, items and locations. The humour was ok, the story I was willing to give a chance. But I didn't want to resort to a walk through so I just kind of petered out.

I enjoy Vitalic, not sure if he's newer but has decent body of work :)

I think a mixture of BBC, cnn, al jazeera, economist, will get a casual reader to a decent spot, and they're all mainstream media. Possibly guardian but emlarhically not their opinion pages (I agree with them, but even so they're gratingly opinionated, hate to think what a die hard conservative will think of them :)

The two statements are not inherently contradictory.

Removing / reducing / "doing something about guns" may well be hard, and it is beyond fascinating to many of us that majority of people / politicians / entities in USA do not want to do it.

In fact, I would say two statements are even complementary - your statement that doing something about guns in usa is hard, is because / as a result of original post that (bewilderingly) most Americans don't want to do it.

(Somehow, turning children schools into dystopian fortresses with metal detectors and armed teachers and security guards and turn stiles and gun drills, pervasive surveillance and trigger-twitchy responses and now drones, is... More freedomy? Liberty, Fuck Yeah? Dunno...)

I imagine even in such a job, your shift lead, team boss, or warehouse manager or whatever, would be able to confirm "yes, Bob worked here in truck driving capacity from 2022 to 2024".

References have many levels of usefulness, but the bar starts low - did this person actually perform the job / hold the role they claim in a resume.

Next, and the one I'll agree you don't get as much in modern environment, is how much did they burn bridges / how competent they were. The team boss might be allowed to say "Bob?!? He drove well but god dammit the guy never showed up on time for his shift!". Or they might not.

Can you elaborate?

Many companies don't allow details, but are allowed to confirm a person was employed in a specific role. That's in many cases a sufficient to serve as a reference.

E.g. In my company we have a very strict policy for this, but are still allowed to answer "yes, Bob was employed as problem manager team lead from 2023 to 2025". Conversely as a hiring manager, I'll take that as a minimally sufficient data point in confirming resume entry.

It's a data point, not a final or primary determinant.

Vast majority of corporate team members or leads are not allowed to say anything bad or much other than whether that person was employed or not.

Nevertheless :

1. If a person has a comprehensive long resume but cannot provide meaningful references, that poses a significant question as to why

2. A person will not typically say anything bad about their ex colleague or team members due to legal and policy constraints. Nevertheless if they stick to the "this person was employed here" and don't give even a perfunctory "oh Bob? Yeah he was a good guy. He was employed here from 2023 to 2025" even after some soft prompting, again, a data point.

Depends what you're looking for in an employee or colleague. If "history of not completely burning bridges to the ground " is relevant to you, references are "a" data point.

Fair warning; any links to specific cases (not the law itself)?

It is my limited understanding that as much as many of us groan at the notion of Spacex becoming "an AI-first company", markets in general, and Musk investors in particular, are slurping it up. Musk is very very very good at promising the sky. I don't think he can backtrack, he always digs in further - and it has historically worked well for him. He will drop AI only when the next big hype thing comes along and he hitches a ride on that train.

There's the internal reality and external perception.

As an outsider, it feels all levels of USA government are constantly fighting and going back and forth and back and forth over big topics like minority rights, marriages, religion in schools and public matters, funding, environmental concerns, police approach, rights and freedoms, spying, choices of utilities, etc.

Same for EU externally I imagine.

I feel "about a 8 floor building" would be a good ROM :)

I think parallel comment has a much better answer than I could provide - EU is a set of heterogeneous political units which each have multiple nested political units within. Given complexity of USA states rights and legislative bodies, vs municipal and county governments, and then vs the federal judicial executive and legislative branches, including a complete house and a complete Senate, all permeated at all level by two binary polarized parties, all within a single country, I'm not sure EU system is that different or suboptimal anymore.

Hi! Thx for sharing :).

I've read the "how revival works" section, but still have no idea "how the revival works".

("We've used ai" is all I got from both this intro on HN and the we pages I read, though possible I missed some section.)

Can you share?

I.e. Did you take original audio recordings and run it though some audio chain that optimizes the mix and volumes? Did you put the sheets and lyrics into ableton and recreate the music? Did you feed audio files into chatgpt and prompt "make it better"? Something else?

In the interest of transparency, understanding what happened here will significantly guide my own emotional response :). I appreciate the details of 5 core principles, but spending so much time on principles without actual detail on what got done makes me skeptical and even cynical, which may not be the intent. For example, I personally distinguish between a raw photo, edited photo, composite image, and AI regenerated image, and one of the things I'm trying to understand is the path / traceability from human to final audio file.

Thx!

That's implementation details though; one can absolutely think that "EU is a good idea" and "specific EU systems need improving" simultaneously, without contradiction.

It's like thinking "I like Canada and am a proud Canadian, though I think there's still a lot of inequality and many policies can be improved upon and we can certainly be more efficient".