_jab

I mean, is he wrong? Genuinely the only other application I’ve seen which seems plausible is for use in places like Venezuela where the official currency is worthless.

Something that might not be obvious to onlookers is the extent to which these problems are concentrated in only Downtown SF. Though the situation downtown is undoubtedly bleak, many other neighborhoods in SF have been surprisingly lively lately, such as Mission Bay, Hayes Valley, and Dogpatch. A lot of people, myself included, still like SF, just not the downtown.

It's a shame; SF doesn't have any other retail hub, and every store that closes feels like a loss. The question will be to what extent can the damage be contained to downtown, and whether other neighborhoods can help make up for the decay of downtown.

I'd consider myself cautiously optimistic.

Here's the data for the Bay Area from 2020 - which was considered a particularly bad year for wildfire smoke, and is also the most recent year it's caused particular problems here. Peak levels were only around 200, although it was admittedly somewhat prolonged: https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/current-air-quality...

Uh, that's clearly an outlier. None of the other dozens of sensors around it are registering anything higher than 42.

There's probably some truth to the idea that other places have exported their homelessness problems to San Francisco, but I think you're overblowing it here. Homelessness is a really complicated problem that I doubt has simple causes and solutions.

I do however agree that this is a national issue. I think places like New York and Boston are likely to see significantly worse homelessness themselves over the next decade.

I'd been of the impression that corporate home ownership is mostly surging in places like the South and Sun Belt, where housing prices themselves are surging. Housing prices in California have been pretty stagnant since Covid, at least compared to much of the rest of the country. California real estate isn't actually a great investment for these companies right now.

I mean, would you want HN to be completely overrun by bots?

High accuracy is not vital for all applications. I’d offer code completion bots as a perhaps familiar example of LLMs delivering meaningful value today.

I understand the sentiment, and I definitely think there are appropriate comparisons to be made to past hype waves like crypto and even AVs, but the fact that so many normal people use ChatGPT and find it not only interesting but also, critically, useful, tells me that LLMs may follow a different path in the long term.

How many people, I wonder, criticize this user's actions as pedantic, and yet themselves regularly make use of and appreciate code formatters like Black, Prettier, or yapf?

It's the exact same problem.

Seems like this is an unfortunate consequence of data collection being opt-out, not opt-in.

The New York Times' style guide is starting to look pretty dated. This has gotta be the first time I've seen "L.L.M." as opposed to just "LLM".

> I assumed it was scaremongering after seeing comments saying that theft was legal in SF up until the $300 point (the number might be incorrect, can't remember exactly) but then saw some articles popping up saying lots of big franchises like CVS were shutting their stores due to rampant theft. But from where I sit (in Australia) it seems so bizarre to allow theft like this I struggle to believe it is real.

You're talking about Prop 47, and the number is $950. There's some pretty widespread misconceptions about Prop 47, first of which is that theft under that amount is not "legal" - it's just a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

But I think something much more important to recognize is that this law is hardly a uniquely Californian affair. Texas, of all places, has an equivalent law, except its limit is $2500 - higher than California's: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/08/09/what-s-the-pun...

Also, worth mentioning that Walgreens, which was generally the franchise most known for citing SF crime while closing stores, later backpedalled those concerns: https://www.axios.com/local/san-francisco/2023/01/09/walgree...

That said, SF does undeniably still have one of the highest larceny theft rates in the future, and it has plenty of work to do on that front. But you'd be right to be skeptical of anecdotal evidence that the city is outright dysfunctional. At the very least, you shouldn't believe anyone who states SF's problems are the fault of any single simple cause, whether that be Prop 47 or Chesa Boudin.

Yup, exactly the same experience here. It feels like there's been a recent wave of SEO-optimized websites that consistently pop up when I google specific errors, but rarely have literally anything of substance.

Interesting - haven't heard of Kagi before but I looked them up and I can definitely see how a subscription-funded search engine leads to a better incentive structure. But can you provide qualitative examples of how your experience has been better than on Google?

Why are people hating on Gates these days? The others all spent their wealth on occasionally bizarre self-indulgent passion projects; Gates went into philanthropy. I know the man isn’t perfect but surely he’s a tier above those other three.

This argument, that it’s the trans community that is intolerant and not those who don’t fully accept trans gender identities as legitimate, is simplistic and in bad faith.

The problem is that a lack of genuine acceptance of trans identities (i.e. that trans men are men, and trans women are women) inevitably leads to trans people _not_ being treated the way they want to be treated.

The classic examples of these are bathrooms and athletics. Trans people want to use the bathrooms and compete on athletics teams corresponding to their identity. It sure feels like intolerance when this choice is denied from trans people.

I don’t know your own personal views, but it’s certainly not the case that “the vast majority of people” are aligned with trans people on the above issues.

What a bizarre article. "We've successfully convinced Meta we are not their competitors and have been dropped from their antitrust lawsuit - oh by the way here are all the ways we're so much better than this company we're definitely not competitors with."

Were Simula so desperate to shit on Meta that they needed to post this article the precise moment it ceased to be a legal risk to do so?

It’s also a sign there’s not sufficient supply of it. Hence that America as a whole sucks at mass transit.

I'm confused about why this matters. From anecdotal experience, Nvidia seems to be struggling to meet demand for its products right now anyways. It's hard to tell, but I assume that even if crypto took a major hit, Nvidia could still sell a good chunk of its newfound supply to genuine gamers instead. Alternatively, they could invest more into their ML-focused chips instead, which are also supply constrained.

Granted, this might not have been true in 2018, which appears to be what the SEC's charge is focused on. Nonetheless, I don't think the huge amount of demand from crypto for Nvidia's products should be construed as a bad thing; there's plenty of other demand.

Anyone else finding that clicking on this link overrides their browser's "back" button? It's just grayed out after clicking on the link. Might well be browser-specifc - I'm on Firefox.

I'm skeptical FB is so sketchy as to do this intentionally, but I've also never seen this behavior before.

Reminds me of a pistol class I once took. The instructor said he didn't believe in using the physical safety, because people tended to use it as a crutch to ignore other safety measures.

1 is almost certainly false. She's been fairly involved with TIME magazine for at least two months.

I'm gonna at least offer the possibility that this story doesn't have much to do with NFTs at all. Rather, it's just the story of a young BIPOC artist whose art and story are resonating people. After all, she has gotten a lot of recent publicity. I don't purport to know much about art, but it wouldn't be the first time I've been bewildered by its valuation.

That said, "NFT-hype" is almost certainly causing at least some price inflation here, but I don't think the levels of fraud suggested by other commenters are likely.

The claim seems to be that the game will attract people who don't view the game as an income stream, but rather just as a game. They pay the entry fee, and then may also buy assets from other players, thus funding the play-to-earners.

I think there's a slim chance this could be a viable business plan, but probably not in any socially-good way. The mobile games industry reaps a good chunk of its profits from "whales", customers who spend crazy-seeming amounts of money on games. Blockchain-based games may also be especially dangerous to young gamers who get access to a parent's credit card and rack up huge charges. This already happens in games like Fortnite, but whereas Epic Games can be pressured into giving refunds to parents when this happens, a blockchain offers no protection if the rules of the game don't allow for it.

We're probably better off if it _is_ a Ponzi scheme.