another-dave

"University (really all education beyond teaching people to speak) will be pointless because there’s no work to do and because growing your human capital doesn’t change your life outcomes: you get the same UBI whether you’re illiterate or a PhD."

If every did get UBI, I'd imagine there would still be some who'd choose to attend (or teach at) universities for the love of knowledge.

In the same way there would be book clubs, writers' groups, 5-a-side football teams etc etc

I mean, it's not really, it's basically standard A/B testing right? If they roll out a new system prompt or temperature setting etc then you see how many people now downvote the replies.

Is it as good as capturing everything for them? No, of course not. But then don't frame the whole thing as "if you're on an enterprise plan we won't train on your data"

Generally (and with Anthropic), enterprise plans aren't used for training / tracking / targetting.

There's a whole spectrum of things they could do from most to least aligned with that as a principle.

For example, they could have a thumbs up/down

- just track the metadata of the conversation (e.g. model used, how far through its context it was, how old the session was) - track metadata of the user as a whole (how often they use Claude, how many other "active" conversations they have on the go, how much they've tested other models, if this is their first time using new tweaks to params etc) - have contextual feedback of the chat available for humans to review (alongside the comments you put in the feedback), but not explicitly train on it.

Whereas the option they've chosen is:

> If you explicitly report feedback or bugs to us (e.g. via our thumbs up/down feedback button), or otherwise choose to allow us to use your data, then we may use your chats and coding sessions to train our models.

So literally using your session as training input. They also could've allowed this to be an opt-in on bug reports.

I mean the author specifically called that they weren't talking about that.

They're comparing the tempo deviation not just in the drums but in literally everything.

Billie Eilish may be singing over a drum machine rather than a live drummer but that wouldn't make _her_ perfectly on time.

I think the idea of a separate discipline of UX design came along is because, outside of big companies, a lot of designers in the field at that point in time were coming from a print/graphic design background rather than HCI.

It was a bit of "let's not forget this element of application development".

When pubs & cafés play music here in the UK they pay royalty fees to PRS for Music.

If I record the songs playing & they sell bootleg CDs, I don't have a defence of "but it was played in public, so all copyright was waived". That's not how copyright works.

this sounds really clever.

One suggestion - external contacts won't know that this address will bounce for anyone they add in CC. Maybe have an option where if I include the original whitelisted domain/person in the chain then it will let the mail through even if it's from a non-whitelisted person.

Just thinking of scenarios like, you give out your email address to <your-neighbour@gmail.com> who then emails you about a 5-a-side game with a few friends but any messages from any of the other friends bounce.

Or you apply for a job at ACME Inc and then you get a message back from `alice@acme.com` saying, please coordinate with `bob@our-recruiter-consultancy.com` who'll arrange the interview but Bob can't contact you

"After doing this for more than 20 years I have asked that question hundreds of times and the answer is almost always about aesthetics, about 95%+."

It may be that a lot of it is aesthetics (though aesthetics also matter to usability) but some of it is richer functionality.

For example, a pattern I've been asked to implement multiple times is a requirement like this:

"We should have a 'Country prefix' input for a telephone number on the form. It should be a list, but allow the user to filter. They should be able to search by code (+44, 0044) or by country name (United Kingdom). We want a little flag beside the input".

Now I _can_ do that myself from browser APIs, e.g. using something like a datalist, using emojis for flags. But then I've to handle stuff like Win/Chrome not even supporting the emoji properly. Chrome will autocomplete based on label or value but FF won't. Even though there's a datalist, I can't constraint the input to _only_ select one of those values, so I need to do additional client-side validation on inputs anyway.

Then if a designer said of an 'contact book' look-up (e.g displaying an profile photo of people instead of a flag) I now have to come up with some other custom field anyway, to support that.

I think the browser level APIs and supported tags have come a long way from where they were, but they're still at the level of primitives. The libraries people are reaching for are one level above that.

But we've well established patterns on the web now that there's no reason we couldn't have richer OOTB browser chrome and remove the need for a lot of this stuff getting reimplemented in libraries all the time.

It's been awhile since I used one so maybe I'm misremembering, but isn't the brace position for a lap infant basically the same as what a rear facing soft baby carrier does naturally?

It seems strange to disallow the carrier, have the belt that loops through the adult belt but then if the plane is going down you have to get them into the same position they'll be in in the carrier anyway!

> The money in sports allows for people to focus on it and perform at the highest levels possible and compete against others who also have this same focus. Advertising is what allows for this to happen.

Erling Haaland gets half a million a week. His contract is worth £260m.

These guys take the money because it's on offer to them, and fair play to them.

But I don't think they'd decide not to play football and go off to do something else if he were to "only" get, say £5.2m over 10 years instead (£10,500 per week).

> The sport wouldn't be as popular or have as much funding. The reason football is where it is because of marketing.

wouldn't have as much funding, sure, but football was massively popular long before they started putting logos on shirts & hoardings.

If there was less money involved in football, then the likes of the free-to-air stations would be in a better position to compete to show more matches, too

> Are they allowed flash? What about studio lighting? What about commentary? Paid actors? > > "Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed"

what exactly is the 'threat model' that you're trying to protect against here? If you already don't trust John Doe as a credible source, of course then there's a million ways he can frame a scene to tell an unreliable story. That's always been the case.

But to me, what we're looking for now in the age of diffusion models is for someone to be able to say "here is the provenance of this image, it came from John Doe's camera" and that can survive being shared round the internet, provably.

> You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames.

I'm not suggesting that the _only_ thing that gets used is a raw image. I'm saying that if you go to the Wall Street Journal, then underneath the photo, beside the credit, they put a link out to some page that hosts the RAW file, the metadata of the camera used and a signature.

If you find the photo unbelievable and think it's bogus, you're able to regenerate the signature from the parts and see that it's valid. (and obviously if they link off to something that's massively different - that isn't just compression, white balance, etc - people hold them to account)

I think for photojournalism it should be original raw image, as captured in camera — zero edits for colour correction/cropping/filesize etc — platforms can link a digital sig from a postprocessed version but you keep the provenance proof tied to a published original.

> Also, to be able to sell stuff, you gotta comply with the CE rules one way or another, there is no free card here.

Yes but there's a big difference between "only import electronics that aren't fire hazards" and "you have to pay custom & excise on anything you import".

and if you have no website at all, it takes zero seconds to load.

But for people who are developing websites that are more than just text, this is an excellently written article and great advice.

It's funny, for mobile app dev it feels like the community are a lot of focused on staying off the main thread, this is the first time I've come across one for webdev.

"The 'right to repair' regulations introduce new rights and supports aimed at encouraging repair over disposal, including a repair obligation for manufacturers of certain products and the establishment of a national repair platform to help consumers locate repair services."

If your hardware start-up was going to tell me to buy a new product if it broke after a year, then I've no problem if it doesn't get going in the EU.

We don't need more cheap tat, we need things that can have a reasonable shelf life. We used to expect that from products as standard. Then when more things became electronic, it started to drift into obsolence after X years.

But there's so many products that don't need to be replaced. I don't need a state-of-the-art pedometer or weighing scales, I just need one that does the job it did when I bought it.

I imagine that it probably went like this "what about identical twins?" / "Don't worry about that for now, we'll solve for it before we go live, but it's not in this milestone". Then someone pulls rank and decides the product is "good enough, we can't wait for all bugs to be fixed" and gets it deployed.

I don't think the parent meant that it doesn't need moderation, but we've always had that in IRC/boards etc.

But there's nothing akin to personalised algorithms, resharing posts, multimedia content etc. I mean even text formatting is very lean :)

To me, the biggest hurdle to trying to manage agents like humans is that there's no real continuity, out of the box at least.

You can trying to get around this with RAG and markdown files and skills but you're basically building from scratch the "tools" on how to remember the codebase that you take for granted with people

The fact that you had 'hydration breaks' in enclosed, fully air-conditioned stadiums is very telling.

That's not the point he was making at all though.

He wasn't saying "buy a fancy pen, it's better for your brain".

The positioning is "every time people hear that I write on paper, they come up with all these reasons why it won't work for them (crap/smudges/etc). These are the things I do so that's not a problem for me"

I would've thought you could solve that with multiple agents.

So rather than having "Claude" installed as a god-mode user in all channels, you have 10 instances of a bot running, each with their own context and ACLs.

For example, you could set it so that the agent's ACLs become the intersect of the least privileged user in all the channels it lives in - you try to add a bot to the "Executive Bonus discussion" and get told

> You can't add AliceBot to this channel because AliceBot is also in #intern-onboarding alongside 'Johnny Appleseed' and Johnny doesn't have access to this channel. Would you like to create a new bot?"

My understanding of what they were saying Buzz is is that agents are "1st class" users in their own right, rather than being an app integration.

If you have a user called Claude, then you just apply ACL as normal & you don't care if they're human or bot, right?

that feels like the opposite analogy though - filleting a fish to the precision of a Michelin starred kitchen might be hard, but knives in general are easy to use, even for a beginner.

I think it's a really interesting space, because it feels like the answer to what a DM does in context is on a spectrum - as in, their decisions on what is valid/invalid is not pure game engine analysis (Nb1 is illegal, disallow) and it's not pure improv (work the story with a "yes, and…" approach).

Instead it's very context dependent - the DM might accept a player saying "I put a sausage in the NPC's mouth" if the player is in a tavern having his dinner, even if it was never explicitly stated that he's eating sausages. It's a judgement call as to whether the DM thinks this particular bit of improv will move the story in an interesting direction, even if they haven't written it upfront plus an attempt at balancing that magicking up an item out of thin air isn't conferring an unfair advantage.

Why wouldn't a player be available though? CD/DVD players won't just suddenly stop working. My CDs and CD players at home from the 1990s are still working completely fine.

If they do want to posit it as this, I'd personally be fine if they said "a CD will work for 100k plays before corrupting" so you'll have 100,000 credits to stream The Wizard of Oz before you need to purchase it again.

But they need to say that upfront.

this feels like a fun premise!

As feedback, I think I'd enjoy it more with shorter words or more guesses

I think most people would consider it something published alright, as other definitions start to become a bit absurd (e.g. reading the menu at a restaurant or the match day programme probably aren't what people consider as 'reading for pleasure').

Outside of that, I don't think we should gatekeep it too much though - the biggest benefits come from reading anything at all.

This post from awhile back suggests it's at 501 karma - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439437

He'll likely win alright, but at the last GE, he only received 21,225 out of 45,648 votes cast, (so got 47% of the votes on 58% turnout).

I think you'll get a non-trivial amount of people voting for Binface either a) because you don't care about politics & think it's funny b) as "anyone but Farage" c) to treat it as a by-election because they think Binface won't take his seat and it'll trigger the 'real byelection' with their preferred party instead.