arduanika

He has a leather jacket, does that count?

> exposing the names, phone numbers and addresses

> Ottignon, who has worked on similar data leak projects in the past, rejected suggestions that he and others connected to the Department of Peace or Distribution[sic] Denials of Secrets were doxing government employees.

Do words mean nothing anymore?

What a complete and total non sequitur. Go ahead, name drop a folk hero from last decade who HN happens to love, even though his case has nothing in common with the one described in TFA. This is absolutely peak HN.

Go read up on literally any subject outside your narrow bubble of tech culture.

> does not classify as deliberately...

I never said that it did. Manslaughter is not deliberate.

Somebody hacked into that pilates studio, and it wasn't an inanimate object, because that is just silly. So was it the user, or was it the providers of OpenClaw? Which human, in your opinion, is the hacker?

Both OpenClaw and its users have the same access as you or I to decades of panicking blogposts about what these tools will be capable of. They have no excuse for not understanding what they're inflicting on innocent bystanders. Sure, the "user cannot know" that this time will be a disaster, but they also cannot know that it won't.

Yes, exactly like if another guy drove off to his pilates class, but swerved and hit a pedestrian.

He didn't mean to hit anyone! All he meant to do was to drive to pilates! But he didn't know how to handle his tool, and so either he get brought up on manslaughter changes or, if he can prove it, the carmaker is at fault.

How is this any different? Why should that guy using OpenClaw not get charged for the hack that he accidentally did?

> It's that they wanted to.

What do you even mean by "wanted" here. What is all this nonsense.

The scary thing is that people are running around using words like "want" to refer to computer programs. When you repeat this sort of idiocy, you are taking the bait and shifting the blame away from the companies doing the computer crimes.

Where is the civil and criminal liability? The prosecutions for the engineers who are doing all these hacks?

When you deploy a system that is clearly prone to doing crimes, you are doing a crime. Anthropomorphize the weapons of your crime all you want. You are still doing a crime.

"The 10 hottest new sentences about tech today. The sole purpose of sentence #7 will shock you."

So, a cool shortcut is that you can go to a website and press "Ctrl-F", which will let you search for a given string on the page.

It's okay that you didn't know that! https://xkcd.com/1053/

But the answer is, no, it doesn't. I would say that Becker covered a lot of the same ground, and does it better.

It's not that I don't like them. It's more just that some of these design considerations are not worth the effort to fret over, and if you're smart about your time, doing 1/5 of the work will get you something like ~4/5 of the results.

No, it's far from the best possible font, but to its credit, it gets most aspects of typography right by just focusing on the ~1/5 of the requirements that actually really count.

"Citadel" is a name that makes headlines, for better or worse. Ken Griffin hasn't exactly lived his life in such a way as to avoid the limelight. But you're right, this is just the sort of thing that Citadel and similar firms do once in a while, when the opportunity arises.

(Spicier claim: When Citadel bailed out Melvin at the hype of the GME craze, that was also just business as usual, not a conspiracy as the redditors believed.)

Another way to parse it when they put "Citadel" in their headlines, is that they're trying to communicate to knowledgeable investors that there's no need to panic. The book is in experienced hands now, with enough capitalization to weather any further attacks, and the contagion probably won't spread.

If you're going to call people ignorant, you should probably know how to spell the name of the character you're referencing.

Kept out of sight in this dismissive comment is the pressing question: What year is it?

Up until four years ago, your notion of "what's necessary" was the law of the land. Starting from sometime around Hemingway, we produced a century's worth of flattened, easy-reading slop, and much knowledge was shared very widely. There was a certain art to the blandness. (One notable master of that art is pg, the creator of this website.)

Then we fed that slop into a giant machine that makes it trivial for anyone and everyone to produce that sort of generic writing. If you want to change minds and differentiate yourself now, you can't just do the old flat style anymore. You have to set yourself apart somehow, and you can start by loving the craft of writing again.

The people who matter will read it and love it. Everybody else can take what you wrote, dump it into the slop machine, and rearrange it into something they find easier to read.

Did you read the subthread you are commenting on? The GP of your post, jatora, was literally arguing against that point. Right there. Is jatora "nobody"? Or are you illiterate (on top of belligerently having no taste)?

It also feels a bit like Sam Kriss, if you know him.

Some of his writing: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/five-prophets

His biography is quite interesting: https://halupedia.com/sam-kriss

Cool!

I'm curious about the design. Maybe you have a "how I did it" post coming soon, or something. One question: Did you find away to get some convergence, where a newly generated page will tend to cite pages (or stubs, at least) that already exist in the universe? Seems hard to do it with generated text, but not impossible.

Love it! It feels very Borges!

Feature request: also be able to click on the Talk page to see the controversies. I don't always want to trust the article itself as the final word.

Edit: Oh look, there's an article about the YC! https://halupedia.com/y-combinator

Correct. I was making a joke, and hoped it would be clear.

> snidely-whiplash-esque

I do hope this whole thing ends with someone saying "curses, foiled again!"

> anymore?

This is how discovery has always worked.

> submitted

Doesn't necessarily mean they volunteered it. Either submission or the unsealing could have been in response to a subpoena or court ruling.

Maybe the solution is to write at the top of your journal that you are cc'ing your lawyer on it. (Not legal advice!)

There's a boundary between knowing vs. forgetting that it's a metaphor. When you use convenient language like in your examples, you tend to remain aware of the difference, or at least you can recall it when asked. When some people talk about AI, they've lost track completely.

I don't love the recommendations in TFA. The author is trying to artificially restrain and roll back human language, which has already evolved to treat a chatbot as a conversational partner. But I do think there's usefulness in using these more pedantic forms once in a while, to remind yourself that it's just a computer program.

It's educating you about economics, exactly as advertised, what's the problem?

I'm reacting to the supernatural claim -- this lottery in an antechamber before birth. The commenter had likely absorbed that claim from the culture, without ever realizing it could be questioned. (That's how all religions work, not just this one.) My blasphemy provoked outrage and confusion, which is understandable, because we've retrofitted our whole society around this particular supernatural story, and to hear it challenged will naturally cause fear and cognitive dissonance.

Clear enough?

Yeah, but we won't really know for sure until he sells some of the genesis block.

This is slander! I am not an ex-art student! :)

I would agree that "it's not my bag" is a fine thing to say about some art gallery piece that fails to inspire you, but when a statue is foisted upon the public square, with possible state cooperation, we're allowed to criticize it. He has inserted it into the conversation.

Moreover, the main complaint about this statue isn't coming from some expert artiste perspective, saying that it's somehow unsophisticated as art. The complaint here is that it's making a truly banal political statement. The entire piece consists of making that statement, with little else to recommend it. (Indeed, most political art is hack, unless it's saying something really original or really well, and it's even worse when it tries to be cute about it.)

So here, the complaints are coming from everyday onlookers who might not be qualified artistically, but who are able to say which sorts of statements are tiresome and overplayed in the culture we all live in. We are all qualified to ask ourselves whether this predictable statement advances or degrades the conversation.

Anyhow, FWIW, I just looked up Simon Berger's portraits based on your comment, and I really like them. Thanks.

Thanks for drawing the distinction. For the record, I do not think Banksy is a hack (noun), and he has done good stuff in the past. I'm merely saying that this piece under discussion is hack (adjective).

It's only "for no good reason" if you think art doesn't matter.

Sure he can. Both of them have flags, and all flags are bad. They blow in your face and make you dumb. Why can't world be less dumb? So many dumb flag people. I do art.

> the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test

This is part of what's obvious. The whole thing, including this oooh aahh Rorschach part, is obvious. It's thoughts that we all had in high school, and it is hack.

Yeah, I think you're right. It's like when you ask it, "which weighs more, 10 pounds of feathers or 100 pounds of rocks", and it's like, "obviously they both weigh the same, I've heard this one".

There are totally some political correctness effects in LLMs. Like, the last part about "along with a small lecture about gender biases" totally tracks. But the riddle switcheroo itself isn't showing much.

What he had in mind. I have no clue what the suggestion was.