elicash

Here's the context for the "abundance" reference, for those curious:

> I believe that AI could cure most major diseases in the next 5–10 years, greatly accelerate economic growth rates, create a world of abundance and empowerment, and usher in a renaissance of democracy and freedom.

Whether that matches your description of it, I'll leave for folks to decide for themselves.

This is not me putting some unrelated pet issue into this topic; to evaluate David Sack's post arguing against government regulation, it's entirely fair to examine whether he has been consistent. He hasn't. He supported a government-imposed pause on Anthropic because of his political disagreements with the CEO.

Your initial reply of "poor Anthropic" was vague, but I interpreted it as implying that we shouldn't stick to a principle given they are unsympathetic in some way.

A principled individual could dislike Anthropic and still not favor using government to punish speech.

David Sachs wants to use government to punish people he disagrees with politically, like Dario.

He supported the Department of War's illegal actions against Anthropic.

He supported the Trump administration's temporary export controls against Anthropic, the first government-imposed pause.

He has said Anthropic has created a monopoly, implying that they should be broken up.

I don't take him seriously when he says he doesn't favor government action. He favors it when he doesn't like their speech.

I haven't used a foldable. Is it hard to click on buttons, for example, that happened to be place down the seam? Or has that type of thing been long solved?

The product isn't out yet. I imagine there will be a setting for dock on left or right, if that's what you're referencing.

It was 1991 and 2002 AUMFs that were repealed in December 2025. I appreciate the correction.

(That said, the 2001 AUMF hasn't been invoked against Iran.)

There is no AUMF, and I believe Congress already repealed previous ones?

I thought the remaining issues were a dispute related to the timing requirements in the War Powers Resolution, plus unsettled Constitutional law.

I think that's a smart point and seems likely to be attempted.

It presents interesting questions, though. Right now, insurance companies are incentivized to fight for their customer in court against the other driver because they don't want to pay out.

But if the FSD provider is also the insurer, they aren't a neutral party if the dispute is between whether FSD is to blame or if the driver is to blame. It could become adversarial, let's say if the data in the car shows the driver wasn't looking at the road at the moment of the crash and therefore wasn't ready to take over for self-driving.

There might be ways around this, but it's a challenge to overcome. I'd want my insurance company to protect me against my FSD provider, too.

(My point is complicated by the fact that liability coverage is separate, admittedly. My insurer might not want to pay out if I was driving drunk, for example.)

I think insurance companies might beat the regulators, in terms of incentivizing safer vehicles via discounts.

Which would then offset these monthly subscriptions by car companies.

1. After reading this article, I'm going to hear this music https://youtu.be/KVdqwD_bcPs?si=qo_3_9yZWiW3zEQW&t=86 in my head the next time I'm waiting for a response from my LLM.

2. The author understandably takes issue with the 35 hours. But I do think it's wrong to confuse the time it takes with the number of lines it ultimately writes. To quote Blaise Pascal, "I would have written a shorter letter, but did not have the time."

Apple should have put these videos out at WWDC. It would not have spoiled anything; everybody already knew the folding phone was coming and they could have just said it was related to any large device.

Way too late for developers to tackle this now for the Duo release.

I remember that HN discussion, but it seemed to me from the outside that after that post they got Google as a sponsor and I just had assumed the community was rallying together for them a bit.

But I guess not.

Too bad, they seem like such good people. Not that they're dead or something but I don't think this was their ideal end state for Tailwind.

Demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szW7N_7B3tU

Same happened to me (with my very different prompt).

I believe most anti-Flock folks are making a strategic error by focusing attention on these abuses. It allows them to merely roll out improvements that prevent this type of thing, while ignoring the more fundamental privacy issues at stake with the intended uses.

Related: Pneumatic tube trash collection, in places like Roosevelt Island in NY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_vacuum_collection

I've always dreamed of a pneumatic tube burrito delivery system that went straight to my house.

It's open source

I think tstrimple incorrectly thought it was a rhetorical question really meant to complain.

But my interpretation was like yours, that it was good faith and a literal question.

Seems to have been developed in 2008 (continuing through 2017), which explains the "economical" framing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Engineerin...

This is just if you don't want to host it yourself, no?

I had never heard of them. But anybody can make a mistake and it shows integrity to immediately remove a section with a disclaimer when prevented with contrary evidence. Not enough folks do this.

You can have strong anti- "car-culture" views and still be committed to the truth.

Interesting, I went to the link they gave and to the safety section and it says:

> As of July 23, 2026, we have temporarily removed our safety analysis from this report, as well as relevant references to the analysis throughout the report (denoted in-text by a reference to this section). We were made aware of data discrepancies between City agency data for New York City for-hire vehicle crashes with serious injuries or deaths, as well as City agency data definitions related to such crashes. We are working to resolve these discrepancies and ensure our findings properly represent the data and the driving records of New York City for-hire vehicle drivers and Waymo vehicles. Other than this section, the remainder of our report remains unchanged.

My guess is jdlyga read this report before it was modified.

"Whatever’s most faithful to the original" would be done with research, not random folks blind ranking.

I think it's to their credit they frame it in terms of preference and enjoyment because that is more accurate to what they are doing.

Is this free or paid?

There's no mention of cost, except on the terms page where it suggests you need to purchase to have a license to use it.

This is a very nice collection.

Edit: I see the change to the terms, that's perfect, thanks!

There's that version of the argument version, but there's also the softer version: that there used to be no training material of illustrated pelicans on bicycles, but now you have actual artistically talented individuals drawing it and that could improve the performance even though the AI labs are sucking it up no differently than everything else.

This post proves that hasn't happened yet, either. Although maybe the bad results posted online are being trained on and that explains the UNDER performance.

Maybe I’m just too anxious an individual. But also, I imagine the lawyers prepping helped.

Interesting to hear your perspective on this as someone who went through it!

It is not overly dramatic to suggest getting a letter like this is INCREDIBLY scary.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would also guess they need to "flip" these folks against OpenAI and get them to cooperate in the lawsuit against the actual folks with big pockets. I think they're essentially alleging a conspiracy by OpenAI and they need as many examples as possible to make the case that this was a pattern and standard practice, not just one or two idiots acting on their own.

So if I'm a former Apple employee and I get one of these scary letters, I'm asking my attorney if I could get out of a lawsuit by sharing any information I have about any potential OpenAI shady practices.

It's not the case that someone successful is doing everything right and someone unsuccessful is doing everything wrong, I'd grant.

But I think it's odd for you to now say it doesn't matter whether or not his AI token use is leading to success or not. I personally think it's actually really important to learn whether/when this approach is smart.