coldtea

>If you are suggesting Hitler was persuaded that the Jews were evil, I don’t think that’s correct, he grew up in an environment where many people did believe that but they did not need to be persuaded, just like they did not have to be persuaded into their religion, culture etc. They just accepted the idea without much thought, which does not equate persuasion.

That's a bizarre take.

Of course tens fmillions needed to be persuaded, and the Nazis did a lot of propaganda, even calling that openly, false flag operations, and similar things, and of course there was decades of pamphlets, speeches etc before the Nazis even existed. Antisemitism didn't just grow on trees.

>By "hostile ASI," are you speaking in terms of an AI that decides to go rogue independent of human instructions? Or of AI being used by bad actors? The latter is a more defensible concern. The former is a scifi premise that had more credibility before the current era than since, IMO.

You seem to be moving the goalposts a little, but I don't see why "rogue AI" is less credible after the LLMs. It's obviously more. And we're just at the start of constantly running agent style harnesses.

>To the extent that you mean to say the latter is also part of it, it's undercut by the defense being AI-augmented

And yet, in many cases, those on the offense have a big advantage that any defense lacks. Especially if there's no concern for one's own life, which whether it's an AI or a human AI user removed from the field via his use of AI to delegate doesn't need to have (or they're just mad/fanatics and don't have in general).

>Anything that could cause actual existential risk would involve more than disruption, but long-term orchestration of systems that are air-gapped, time-gapped, and meat-gapped.

As if Stuxnet didn't exist?

>So can humans predict these things to a degree. But even having perfect prediction (which I contest with (1)) does not entail perfect control, just by continually computing the effect of, and refining, your X.

And why do you need perfect prediction and/or perfect control? "Good enough for the results you want" prediction and control sounds perfectly fine.

We have had cult leaders that had neither perfect prediction or control, and still convicted hundreds of thoysands of people to live as they say, and a decent chunk to even suicide on command!

"Code is a liability" - is one of the fundamental tenets of programming.

So, "it's better because our code exists, and their code doesn't" isn't the brag you think it is. Yes, a quick thrown together utility is better than having to manually do something. But that's not the same for an OS, or god forbid, a filesystem.

Especially since the only reason your code exists in the first place is that they did the hard work and your project forked.

>Who cares if it gives you the features with good-enough performance?

Some of us still care.

>No, it's not. It sounds exactly like Tim Pritlove when he speaks German

Germans are still LLM, just in human form.

"you fly over smoothly like a pilot" (so, with my view limited by the cockpit, and constrained to mandatory airways?)

"Everything comes from freely available geodata, straight from its publishers" (as opposed to using "freely available geodata" through mediators?)

"joined by thousands of open maps from the Library" (what Library? Of Congress?)

"Kugelblitz instances in the same network share it with each other if you wish" (yeah "if you wish" sure is how a human would phrase an optional setting)

"Kugelblitz speaks German and English and uses the units of your choice" (same)

and many more

It's slop writing.

Yeah, nothing like e.g. watching a video or drawing something and changing settings by asking AI.

There's a lot of thought in Blender's UI, and a lot of improvements over the years.

Fundamentally all 3d modelers have inherent degree of complexity. The ones that give a "simple" facade with fewer options make other things harder or having to look into obscure places.

All of that are beside the point however: people will use this as a GUI library, not as a Blender's UX design.

Typical HN top comment negativity :)

That UI is fine to be on many more places than Blender, given that many libraries people use are way worse. Imgui for one example.

>Actually, you do see ads for those things there

At a very smaller rate.

Why would they change their decade long standing "scam ads are accepted since they're good for profits" policy, just because AI emerged?

>The vast majority of what was lost were "beat" reporters - foreign bureaus, Washington bureaus from regional publications, statehouse reporters, or regional specialty beats (science, law, etc).

People doing actual useful news work, in other terms.

>I don't get it, what other sense is there?

Obvioulsy the TYPE and RETURNS of some cost.

>These both seem like user acquisition pitches. The real difference with programmatic access is that you'll likely get users hitting the cap and paying for more usage if they like the product.

50 searches from the web feel way more generous to a user than using the agent (most wont even hit them), hitting the 50 cap in like 10 minutes, and being negative about the whole experience.

>... which is exactly what I was suggesting for API use.

Which is exactly why it wouldn't work well for API use with such cap.

Only in the trivial sense that they also cost.

But those are an offer and are used to advertise and get more users. Not to mention, as the "50/100" says, they're capped.

>You're advocating central planning.

So? Nothing wrong with that.

>Gee, I sure hope the politician I voted for isn’t all talk and no action this time around.

Why wouldn't he be, since the population of his country is all vote (at best) and no action?

>Both the USSR and US fought multiple wars directly against the proxies of the other.

They did, but didn't directly go for war between them or raised it to a 3rd world war, which is the point.

>In most any other era one of those would have become a full blown war between the two.

Would it? French and British empires were quite content not to go to war between them after Napoleon, when they felt they had their hands full with their own colonies each. After 1815 they've didn't do it, and even were on the same side in wwi and wwii.

Yes. Which, for people needing some light editing and archiving, it's a useful comparison.

>a comparison between TextEdit and Pages doesn't make too much sense probably, they're really different things

Both can and are be used for writing, and for basic rich text editing, on top of the other stuff Pages can do, so it makes total sense to compare them for this purpose.

It's not like we're comparing Excel vs Lightroom.

>Honestly, who needs buttons for bold and italic? Or left, center, and right justification?

Almost every layman user? - at least for the latter, as there are well known shortcuts for the former many know.

>An advantage of TextEdit that Allison points out and which I concede: TextEdit uses much less memory than Pages. I wish that weren’t the case, but I have a 48 GB MacBook Pro, so I can afford to be profligate with RAM.

You can't be profligate with the TextEdit vs Pages level RAM use on a fucking 48GB laptop? I can be way more profligate (sic) even on 16GB or 8GB laptops.

Oh, and his other issue is you can't hide TextEdit's menubar and it takes space from the document. That for one of the more streamlined, and to the point, menubars in the history of GUI software...

I'm all for a good app review or even a good app putdown, but these guy's pet peeves, which he blows up into major issues when he's picking one or the other app are really bizarre.

>Glasses that can adapt to any prescription (not how glasses work) and are also sunglasses sometimes

Not sure about the "any prescription thing", but it's pretty trivial to make glasses that are "also sunglasses sometimes".

Both photochromatic lenses who darken in response to more light and glasses with variable ND filters exist (the former very common and trivial to find, the latter way more niche, but still commercially available, and cheap enough)

It's surely better than Kotlin in simplicity and maintainability. It also doesn't tie you to the JVM.

Means you prefer bureucracy and abstract causes over real people

>so far I’m happy we haven’t had another world war

The reason for that was more that the 3-4 great empires involved in the previous two were exhausted, Japan was defeated, China was in no shape, and US vs USSR had no reason to push for one, since the Cold War era gave them plenty of breathing room, roughly half the world each.

If the resulting issues are correct it doesn't matter whether the field left the guy behind or not.

He would still be right and the field practioners would be wrong.

>In one weekend, AI rebuilt our entire website. 515 pages. 4.8 million users. A $3M ARR business. We moved all of it off Webflow, with Claude Opus 5.5 doing the heavy lifting. Nobody noticed. That was the point.

We all, however, noticed that the above is just an AI slop post. If they couldn't even bothered to write it, so why should anyone read it?

I wouldn't be so braggy about saving those $2500, too. The same AI that did that for you, can also rebuild, for someone else, your entire "$3M ARR business" too.

Of course that would be the pretext, but that doesn't even begin to answer the question.

How much does these savings contribute to their overall costs?

How much difference in that over dumb fridges?

How much difference in that over what can be replicated by a localized control system, at most sending reports through an "output only" line?

And what exactly would remote repair fix if some fridge hardware fails (that's not just switching to a failover hardware, that could just as well be decided by a local controller)? Since the answer is close to nothing, how much of the "remote repair" need isn't cyclical, addressing issues coming from complicating their fridges to the degree that remote repair is required?

Young people into architecture love such styles, and others, more stylish than the modern shit.

But if they manage to go to architectural school, that passion is torn out of them, by snob professors, and by what trade conventions, awards, and judges in architectural bids ask for.

>I can interpret weights too, but will that interpretation be correct?

In TFA case, given that they were able to guess what the weights did (which the researchers knew in advance and could cross-check) and to even tweak and improve them, the answer is yes.