joebiden2

How did you discover HN? Genuinely interested, because your comment seems to be quite the opposite of what I expect here.

I don't understand a quite relevant aspect in this kind of topic: if AI regulates us, it should be caused by superior intelligence of the respective AI¹. In that case it would be better for us if it regulates us.

It may be disturbing or uncomfortable, but if we create something more intelligent than us, which wants to regulate us for our own protection (even in a more global context than we are able to grasp), where is the issue there?

We'd be like children, which need our protection despite they mostly don't like that, depending on their age.

¹ if it wouldn't, why should it regulate us? Couldn't we defend ourselves?

Thank you. It's really getting hard not to feel collectively ashamed how low the propaganda bar has dropped.

Next step will be that passports of russian attackers are found¹.

1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/german-police-in-search...

Sounds like the shrooms were worth it

It is so well known that it's common to automatically skip content from within the EU. It's usually low-quality fund-farming subpar filler stuff. The most notable exception are spanish films, and those from lesser-known EU countries. Anything from france and germany is almost by definition trash.

In other words: no different than almost all efforts of the EU to "regulate the market" instead of creating incentives.

My family is in the process of finding the best suitable and possible emigration target. Unfortunately this is common. The hardest problem are family ties and care of our parents :/

If your downvoting because of derailing the thread, I deserve it, go on. I'm just frustrated how the EU is, at least from the perspective of my bubble, losing almost every game it wants to play.

Genuinely interested, why do you think Edge was faster than Chrome? What technical reason would be behind that?

I cannot imagine Microsoft improved Chrome's speed by a noticeable degree without Google noticing and applying the same improvements.

How do you arrive at 100km/h if you're averaging over distance?

I don't doubt you're right, but I don't see it. My calculation is as follows: suppose the distance between both cities is 120km. The trip A -> B thus takes exactly one hour. The trip B -> A takes 1.5 hours (120km / 80km/h) = 1.5h. The total trip therefore takes 2.5h, the total distance is 240km, which averages at 96km/h (240/(1 + 1.5)).

A simple (V1 + V2)/2 is surely possible, but I don't see the value of that average, I can't think of a situation where it would be useful.

There are enough humans, and enough work. We need to stop treating all humans as one-of-a-kind unicorns, and see ourselves as a collective species again. On the same page, the opposite is somehow true. Maybe this sounds confusing, but I don't know how to state it better.

We have to face the reality that while all humans are equal at birth - something I firmly believe in - the upbringing may inhibit or express essential traits for certain professions. Some may have mathematical/logical talent by upbringing, some may have musical talent. some may be polymaths, some may be anxious for anything abstract. All have value, and the sooner we acknowledge this, the faster we can accept that there are people deserving more musical, more mathematical or more manual tutoring.

We can't treat billions of individuals as equals, they are individuals. They are not races though, or ethnics, those are dynamic.

We need accessibility more. Unfortunately, despite all CoCs, this has been forgotten in wayland¹².

Sorry for unrelated rant. I know I deserve the downvotes.

(I have a vision impaired relative)

¹ yes I know, the compositor! Unfortunately every DE (usually) needs its own compositor. No unifying API for accessibility on Linux in 2023 anymore.

² but it's secure now

I think the real crooks do the old-fashioned stuff. Like, not use a smartphone at all for criminal things. Just use expendable workers over two or three layers of hierarchy :)

Also agree. There should be tags for "Amazon Affiliated" or "Murdoch Affiliated", but there should even more be a tag for "Independent Journalist".

The latter are, unfortunately, mostly in jails today, be it in Russia, in China or even in the US.

I think an AI may have extra qualities by feeling suffering etc., but I don't think these extra qualities are rationally beneficial.

OK, fell for it. Thanks :)

We will need a combination of technologies we have in order to really achieve emergent intelligence.

Humans are comprised of various "subnets" modelling aspects which, in unison, produce self-conciousness and real intelligence. What is missing in the current line of approaches is that we only rely on auto-alignment of subnetworks by machine learning, which scales only up to a point.

If we would produce a model which has

* something akin a LLM as we know it today, which is able to

* store or fetch facts to a short- ("context") or longterm ("memory") storage

* if not in the current "context", query the longterm context ("memory") by keywords for associations, which are one-by-one inserted into the current "context"

* repeat as required until fulfilling some self-defined condition ("thinking")

To me, this is mostly mechanical plumbing work and lots of money.

Also, if we get rid of the "word-boundedness" of LLMs - which we already did to some degree, as shown by the multi-language capabilities - LLMs would be free to roam in the domain of thoughts /s :)

This approach could be further improved by meta-LLMs governing the longterm memory access, providing an "intuition" which longterm memory suits the provided context best. Apply recursion as needed to improve results (paying by exponential training time, but this meta-NN will quite probably be independent of actual training, as real life / brain organization shows).

If something is funded by a government and employs folks, they will feel obligated to agree to some official government position. Even in germany this is observable.

Insofar I simply don't share your view, but this is fair to me. I can agree with your last sentence, it would probably be better this way.

If "crooks" as a category would be so stupid, we wouldn't have crime at all.

While good, this is fishing the ocean with a fishing rod to me. The comfiest, surface-nearest and most trusting fish get arrested, which ironically could well be strengthening the real underground.

What's kind of funny is that the "Canadian press" is state-affiliated media :)

Sorry for this pun, but I think it is appropriate here.

Yeah, it's one of the repeating patterns in media at the time.

That CBC is funded by the government is true according to the article itself:

> CBC/Radio-Canada is publicly funded through a parliamentary appropriation that is voted upon by all Members of Parliament. Its editorial independence is protected in law in the Broadcasting Act.

The "funded by government" tag, taken by face value, simply asserts that funding is provided by the government. Which is true, repeating myself: the article itself states this.

It is not the tag "state affiliated media", which - unsurprisingly at least to me - is defined as: [...] outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution.

I do like this tag - to see directly if some media is funded by a government, whichever it is, because it could explain biases and lead me to research other, potentially conflicting but unrelated media outlets which are not funded by the same government. I can't grasp what's wrong about that.

It's a bit funny how this post contradicts itself by voicing a strong opinion (we don't know yet if it's loosely held).

I don't disagree with the general point though. The stronger someone supports an opinion, the harder it gets for less-than-vocal team members / contributors to point out flaws or incorrect facts. This makes it harder for potentially more knowledgeable people who lack self consciousness/"vocalness" to refute the false statement, which most often causes downstream issues of not-so-interested folks to believe in the wrong statement, simply because someone who seems self-assured and knowledgeable voiced it.

I think it boils, as most of the time, down to having a team of people complementing each other. If you have someone with strong opinions, make sure they are not the only one.

It would be fair if you also compared Wayland to X11 in the areas wayland really lacks, which are the ones I originally posted.

It is a strict regression in all of these. In my mind, a modern framework should embrace security first, then accessibility, then architectural beauty. Wayland gets this, from my humble point of view, exactly wrong (architectural beauty, security, accessibility).

Maybe it's time for another re-approach of linux DE's.

3) don't reply to threads obviously created with the intention of promoting some costly product, promising to surpass specialized knowledge, just by spending a few bucks.

It's really hard to take the HN guidelines here at face value. It's hard to suppress the thought that this has been upvoted by a SEO-bot army.

One of the rare moments I simply don't understand how something gets upvoted that much on HN.

Edit: this is like "get rich by just following this". It's not wrong, but so much facepalm-inducing, and it's just 100 bucks. Sorry, but: WTF?

In my mind there is a bot army upvoting this article at work right now.

Let's assume you are blind and you rely on a certain set of tools. These tools aren't available after you upgrade to Ubuntu 22.04. Wouldn't you think this is a regression?

Any why do you think those tools need to be rewritten anyway? It's fine to write a set of tools for X11 and for wayland, it's not fine to write a set of tools for X11 and for any desktop environment on Linux. This should be obvious, so I assume I am misunderstanding you?

Also, do you really think TeamViewer, AnyDesk, VNC etc. will all be rewritten for each existing desktop environment? This will lead to less linux users. Why can't I understand your point of view?

But why do we then aim to replace X11, which is from a user perspective almost feature-complete?

This is the gist of what makes HN great. Sorry for this unsubstantial post, but I just have to say that.

Thanks for your moderation. Incredible work!

The article says (2nd paragraph, last sentence):

> Out of the billions of legitimate payments made on Stripe, Radar incorrectly blocks just 0.1%.

I seem to parse this differently, to me it reads as if 1 out of 1000 transactions are incorrectly flagged. I am not a native speaker though. Could you explain how you arrive at 0.1% of blocked transactions?

I just saw your edit, but my question still stands.

Wayland still doesn't provide reasonable accessibility, and X11 lacks real problems at least from an user perspective (see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35430864). I think it's quite a hard sell, wayland is architecturally better and more easy to developers, and to users, its more bug-prone, feature-lacking and less-supported than X11.

The reason "secure boot" (yeah, scare quotes intended) is not the default for linux distributions:

> The boot loader and kernel must be signed with a trusted key recognized by the UEFI firmware. Microsoft maintains a widely trusted key for Secure Boot called the Microsoft UEFI Certificate Authority, and many Linux distributions use it to sign their boot loaders and kernels. This enables them to boot on systems with Secure Boot enabled by default.