klik99

Matlab/Scipy/Julia are totally different since those function more like user interfaces, they are directly user facing. You're not building an app with matlab (though you might be with scipy and julia, it's not the primary use case), you're working with data. C++ on the other hand underpins a lot of key infrastructure.

I am a big fan of keepass which I sync with dropbox, good apps exist for iphone/android/mac/windows/linux. But I don't know if that's more secure than a password provider like 1password. At least not fitting into the typical profile, and being able to control the data, open source code, and offline access feels like the optimal way for me.

Yeah, if you're a high profile target then you need extra layers of security, but for regular folks that one weird trick is enough to make you just enough of an annoyance to make another target preferred.

But in a world with Pegasus, and telecoms in smaller vacation countries selling off SS7, etc, etc - if someone good really wants to target you normal security protocols aren't going to cut it.

Good to know.

The guy who called me on friday felt like a targeted attack, I've been getting a TON of pokes at trying to reset my google password. It really made me feel like there's less and less you can trust online. Scammers are winning the arms race, and have the resources to create really good looking pages.

Literally got something similar to this last Friday. Sounded legit. My one weird trick that works every time - give me a ticket # and an official phone number to call back to and I can confirm the phone number is legit. This way you can continue the conversation if it is actually legit, and if it's not legit then all good.

The guy who called me said "I can send you an email to show it's official" and I thought of that immediately when I read this article. No dice, he refused to give me a number to call back on, so I knew it was fake.

EDIT You can spoof from email addresses and you can spoof phone numbers - if someone is calling from a legit number on caller id it means NOTHING. You have to call back to a legit number to be sure it's real.

The amazon "I'm sorry but I cannot fulfill this request it goes against OpenAI use policy. My purpose is to provide helpful and respectful information to users-Brown" listing reminds me of this restaurant in Shanghai when I lived there. The chef who opened it was famous in his local area and wanted a beautiful name for the Shanghai location, and have it in English to reflect the cosmopolitan international city of Shanghai. So he chose a line from his favorite poem, put it through google translate and named it, in big letters above the entrance, "Translation not Found".

Edit The story above that I heard was likely an exaggerated version of this: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=301 - I still like the urban legend version I heard so keeping it up there.

Exactly this - I've said it before and will say it again - new technologies emerge in response to trends, often to accelerate existing trends and does not create them.

I see a few explanations for what you're saying, and those might be true, but I strongly believe part of it is investment (particularly VC, less so PE) has hit diminishing returns in tech and which means less subsidized "disruption", which means less money to hire people. AI becoming hugely popular right when this was happening is not a coincidence. And it's not just startups, less investment in startups also mean less clients for AWS and Azure. A16Z / Sand Hill switching to AI is not them just chasing the latest trend, it's a bid to reduce cost on people, which is the most expensive part of a tech company, as the only way to extend their unicorn-focused investment strategy.

You could write a book on why it's practically impossible to create a new OS these days. Love Carmack for stating it so clearly. I also love that called out TempleOS, I also have a weird respect for it. Plan 9 is the probably the best example of a totally new OS and I hope someday it becomes viable because it's really a joy to use.

But ultimately it just makes sense to adapt existing kernels / OS (say, arch) and adapt it to your needs. It can be hair wrenchingly frustrating, and requires the company to be willing to upstream changes and it still takes years, but the alternative is decades, because what sounds good and well designed on paper just melts when it hits the real world, and linux has already gone through those decades of pain.

Yeah I'm very familiar with Josh Ge and Rex - my current project uses rex files for loading images - I just have a lot of metadata I bake in through hacky ways and rex format is not very flexible - rexpaint is great though

Not parent commenter, but I've been using rexpaint for a while but the editor is clunky and format too limited, I've been looking at other options - At a quick look monodraw does look interesting as a more fully featured replacement.

Nice! I was wondering if it would be good for making ascii art assets for roguelike games (for example: https://www.gridsagegames.com/blog/2014/12/cogmind-ascii-art... or https://www.markrjohnsongames.com/games/ultima-ratio-regum/) - some of the art you've made for oxide thinks it must be good for that!

I’m pretty sure that Apple blocks any exporting of contacts without consent, maybe he previously consented and it stored it, or he clicked ok without thinking. Even things that require consent can be engineered to make it easy to thoughtlessly agree

Yes spot on, crazy that asking for an optional pittance for less bandwidth throttling on such a huge and risky project can be seen as exploitative.

Nice! Leaving a comment to easily find this later, dont have anything to add except this looks cool

Is that GPT5? Reddit users are freaking out about losing 4o and AFAICT it's because 5 doesn't stroke their ego as hard as 4o. I feel there are roughly two classes of heavy LLM users - one who use it like a tool, and the other like a therapist. The latter may be a bigger money maker for many LLM companies so I worry GPT5 will be seen as a mistake to them, despite being better for research/agent work.

It’s my understanding that google makes bulk of ad money from search ads - sure they harvest a ton of data but it isn’t as valuable to them as you’d think. I suspect they know that could change so they’re hoovering up as much as they can to hedge their bets. Meta on the other hand is all about targeted ads.

I’ve been saying for a while if AGI is possible it’s going to take another innovation and the transformer / LLM paradigm will plateau, and innovations are hard to time. I used to get downvoted for saying that years ago and now more people are realizing it. LLMs are awesome but there is a limit, most of the interesting things in the next years will be bolting more functionality and agent stuff, introspection like Anthropic is working on and smaller, less compute hungry specialized models. There’s still a lot to explore in this paradigm, but we’re getting diminishing returns on newer models, especially when you factor in cost

The company I founded previous faced this problem - we were selling to a part of the development team that often had no clout in making financial decisions. We were able to sell to smaller companies and larger ones that happened to have people who had enough power to purchase. But the majority of companies had super long sales cycles where we had to work with them to prove out the cost savings to people higher up. Most of the time this went nowhere and cost us a ton of time. It wasn't the only reason the company failed, but a major contributing factor. Glad to see people talking about it because it's something a lot of small b2b companies face and there's surprisingly little advice on it.

Then people would be saying we’d be better off with 10-bits!

Seriously though we can always do more with one more bit. That doesn’t mean we’d be better off. 8-bits is a nice symmetry with powers of two

Does anybody remember when Elon Musk said he created Neuralink because he was scared of AI and thought brain interfaces was the only way to mitigate that? (Amazing article on brain interfaces here: https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html)

He’s always been a bit crazy but there was a time when he seemed genuinely thoughtful and concerned about the future. Now he’s constantly trying to bait people and intentionally create division for the sake of PR. Maybe he’s bought into accelerationism, but whatever it is is a far cry from his “we should tread carefully” approach

People will see kids laughing and playing in a war zone and think “it can’t be that bad, if it was that bad they’d be cowering in fear 24/7” - but people always find a way to live and find snippets of joy in even the worst situations

Open source really flourished due to lots of sponsoring of projects, I could see an argument that money caused a golden age in 2010s, but money also attracted the type of person who could, without irony, say "It's only been a golden age because of high salaries for relatively low effort."

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

Yeah, the parent comments feel confused, it's kind of a truism that corporations make decisions based on greed. Capitalism, at it's best, tries to align personal/corporate self-interest with the interests of society. If you can't beat 'em, try to direct their interest towards things that benefit society. Keyword here is "try", I mean it's better than feudal lords pursuing self interest by constantly killing each other. The article does a good job of showing how that drive has really made a mess of the job market, and criticizing it because it blames all this stuff on corporate greed is really confusing since both critics and proponents of capitalism agree corporate decisions are all driven by self-interest, they just disagree on the outcomes.

Need a content warning on that splash page

Sure, but it's a hacker news comment, not a book. To be more clear I mean functionally run out of things. To be even more clear, when ROI on innovation becomes less than ROI on simply making product cheaper. There's always innovations, and some may even be missed, but when the perception of the industry is that future innovations cost more than the loss of good will of making worse product then it's obvious what will be picked.

I think the solution is to make "loss of good will" valued higher, right now it's valued very low by investors since people want to hold investments a short time and exit quickly. CEOs elected by boards controlled by shareholders are the same way. Short term growth is incentivized and that undervalues long term retention of customers, which makes it more likely "manufacture a worse product" a better option than "innovate and make a better product that more people will want".

I think it’s very human to keep doing what once helped us when even when it starts harming us. Like an alcoholic who started to help get over social anxiety and saw positive results early on but then starts seeing drink as what makes them happy rather than the social connection it helped facilitate. Yes I’m saying America is addicted to growth.

(I agree it’s more nuanced than that and it’s both succeeded and failed in other ways, and US isn’t the only one - but this a major feature of American capitalism)

No, and that’s not what I said. In fact I said being blindly pro or anti capitalism blinds people to things that could be fixed. Growth helps innovate and create great products up to point of innovation creating diminishing returns.

There’s a huge difference between capitalism and a specific implementation of capitalism.

Parent comment explicitly says this happens when a sector runs out of things to innovate on. Chips are still innovating like crazy which is why we're seeing some amazing processing/CPU/GPU/DSP chips/etc. If we ever hit on the limits of moores law, watch those CPUs become shittier and shittier over a 10 year period.

I think this point is the key and kind of subtle point - "growth at any cost" does actually rise the tide and bring up all boats when there is a lot of room for innovation. It just starts harming when a sector has diminishing returns on innovation. So you'll be able to come up with plenty of counter examples where growth mindset is really beneficial because it's very context sensitive.

People buy cheap because they don't have an option. People are "addicted to cheap" because of growing wealth inequality.

This is exactly what I came to say - growth as the primary goal DOES create innovation, until innovation in that field yields diminishing returns or bottoms out completely, then it creates shittier and shittier product.

The entire American version of capitalism is built around growth as the primary goal, which did great things, but now (unequally, some sectors are still innovating) is creating more and more shitty things.

It's so hard for anyone to acknowledge this because everyone wants to take a "side", pro- or anti-capitalism, without being realistic that there are different implementations of capitalism and there is no system that universally works, it really depends on the situation. Right now we need to make "lifestyle company" not a bad word in investment circles, focus on dividends/revenue sharing over stock growth, create incentives around steady, well run companies, and not companies that outspend and destroy competition and then make their product shittier and/or more expensive.