jallen_dot_dev

Strictly following the law because it is the law is precisely amoral. You are taking moral judgement out of the question.

I'm listening to this in a separate tab, not watching the video, and I feel like I'm missing absolutely nothing for not watching a floating Carmack Cartoon torso that occasionally blinks.

Abstract says they adjusted for potential confounders. Presumably wealth was one of them, as that seems like an obvious thing to control for in any health study.

Ok so the reason this painfully predictable reaction every time Cloudflare is on HN is because HNers have such a deep understanding of "what's happening." Got it.

How did anyone cross the river before the bridge was built? If the bridge falls into disrepair or they start charging people an arm and a leg to use it, what stops someone else from coming along and building a better bridge? If Bridgeflare abuses their market position to prevent anyone else from building bridges then that could be rectified with government intervention, as in any other industry. I just don't get why there is so much FUD when they haven't, as far as I've seen, done anything to warrant it.

Is anyone else worried about how Cloudflare keeps putting out great solutions day after day? They're getting too big because people are too satisfied with them. That's a bad thing, because one day in the future they might take away or change these offerings.

We need shittier solutions. That way we never feel the pain of once having a good solution to a problem and then losing it.

Yup that's what I'm thinking. Higher wages would encourage more elaborate fraud (faking identity, paying a strong interviewer to sit in for you, paying people to pretend to be your references, paying someone in the company to refer you) because the payday makes it all even more worth it.

How do higher wages discourage fraud?

You've seen the film The Man with the Golden Gun ? A cufflink here, a pen there, that pack of chewing gum... assembled together could be a cheating device.

> if the intent really was to not release they definitely don't need that many people sucking down wages.

Of course they do. They need artists to build the ships they sell and they need developers to create demos of stuff they have no hope of delivering, in order to convince people to continue parting with their money.

> Have you seen the dollar’s buying power recently?

Yeah, it's been going up relative to almost all other currencies and especially BTC.

I don't think this is correct.

> Imagine, for example, deciding to put your right hand on the wall of Taylor Swift’s pupil. You’d literally get lost in her eyes!

You would have to first take your hand off the wall in order to put it on the pupil. The idea is you put your hand on the wall at the entrance and never take it off, not put it on arbitrary walls.

I think the guidelines are to encourage civility and healthy discussion. That is, to not dismiss an argument by calling the person a bot. But if the person claims to be a bot, I don't see how it can be a community violation to call a bot a bot.

Maybe. Doesn't change the silliness of people defending it without doing the least bit of investigation, which they would see by looking at the profile that the account claims to be a bot.

Edit: I replied before you edited your comment to point out the punctuation idiosyncrasies. Yeah I agree now, this guy must be LARPing as a bot.

Related: There's a GPT-3 bot on HN[1]. Somebody recently commented[2] that the bot was convincing, and a couple replies criticized them for calling it a bot (one citing ToS).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Traubenfuchs

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32518220

Yep, one of the nice things about HN is finding a topic that is kinda random and that I wouldn't have gone searching for. But I click on it because it piques my interest, and I end up learning something that might be useful or gives me a better picture of the world. We would lose that with specific categories.

r/all has that randomness but it's mostly garbage, like mental fast-food.

What about lab-grown meat?

> I can't copy a book I read if it's still under copyright, even if I were to type the entire contents out after reading them. I also can't narrate those same words in full, because that's one of the rights retained by the author.

Isn't this only true if you distribute those reproductions? Would it be illegal for me to take detailed notes (for my own viewing) about a book, even if they were substantial portions copied verbatim?

GPT-3 and the like aren't reproducing the works they're trained on, they are substantially transforming them.

Nice, I had heard of the Kelly Criterion before but never thought to consider applying it to this situation. It's fantastic if the mathematically correct amount to wager (for any ordinary person) is less than $2 which rounds to 0 tickets which supports my intuition to not play.

Your second paragraph touches on another thought I had, which is why people think it's only worthwhile to play when the jackpot is $600M+. Any of us would be happy to win just $20M so why not play for every jackpot? Again it comes down to that misleading EV calculation, which I believe doesn't even matter if you are only going to buy 1 ticket only. Wagering based on the EV would only make sense if it was feasible to buy on the order of 100M tickets. Then you'd have a reasonable shot of winning each jackpot. And playing enough jackpots, you would come out ahead.

Great analysis. I want to share my thoughts on EV because they seem to go against what pretty much everyone else is saying. I think even if the EV was >$2, it would still be irrational to play. I say this because I think it's silly to talk about the EV of buying a single ticket when the odds of winning are 1 in 300 million.

Like, you still aren't going to win the jackpot. Your odds didn't improve just because the jackpot got bigger. I guarantee you are going to find out tonight that you wasted $2, just as you would have wasted $2 at any other time when the jackpot is/was smaller.

I think it's just people rationalizing what they know is an irrational behavior. They're fooling themselves into believing they are making a rational choice because they want in on the fun/excitement despite paying the "poor tax."

Anyway, good luck to anyone who decided to buy a ticket and enjoy a few hours of fantasizing about what you'd do with the winnings :)

I would pay $20+ for a fantastic burger, especially if all other burgers made people sick.

Sounds awful, but it could be worse. At least the Facebook-managed McDonald's is trying to chase after what most people seem to want. A Google-managed McDonald's would just shut down, even though everyone loves McDonald's, because somebody at Google figured starting a new fast food chain is the best path to a promotion.

"Prove to the court that I am sentient." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol2WP0hc0NY

That would probably just advantage the rich who can afford to keep much of their assets locked up for long periods of time, and even borrow against them.

That does not make sense from a game-theoretic standpoint. You would be helping other landlords at your own expense. It would be better to let other landlords make that sacrifice and rent our your own properties for as much as you can get.

To add to your point, you can rent a gosiwon[1] in Korea for as little as $230/mo. I'm sure these would not even be allowed to exist in any city in the US. The hallways are not ADA compliant. The rooms don't meet some minimum sq.ft. requirement. There are too many occupants per toilet. And so on.

Not to mention you would have NIMBYs block the development of such cheap housing.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR-gtbPOfyc

Bill collectors turn me on.

I don't understand people who don't want to at least have the option. I mean, if it turns out you don't like living longer you could just opt out?

As far as I can tell, "I don't want to live forever anyway" is just cope.

Yeah I think companies will push for full return to office (while making exceptions for top performers who push back) as a way to reduce headcount without having to layoff. Cheaper that way.

He mentions reviewing exceptions for "particularly exceptional contributors" it's intended to be communicated down.