nerdjon

I will admit that I stopped reading the article because I think the article is completely mixing things up and honestly just did not feel like reading anymore of it.

I think very few people actually consider it a single condition. To the point that most people that I know, including myself, say that we are "somewhere on the spectrum" or some variant of that.

This isn't a post diagnoses understanding either, it is well understood by anyone I have talked to about this in the last 10ish years? (maybe less, I cant really pinpoint that).

While I feel like there is value for professionals to be more specific about it, from an everyday person prospective I feel like "Autism" is well enough understood to be not just a single thing. Enough so that some phrasing along the lines of "my tism is..." is somewhat commonplace.

The real problem is anti-science people joining the conversation, but splitting up Autism is not going to change that.

Edit: To be very clear here I am not trying to say that most people in general are saying "I am somewhere on the spectrum". I am saying that most people I know which a larger portion of the people I regularly talk to are also diagnosed.

High cost to who though. We see the same thing when it comes to RAM and CPU usage, the developer is not the one paying for the hardware and many gamers have shown that they will spend money on hardware to play a game they want.

Sure they may loose some sales but I have never seen many numbers on how much it really impacted sales.

Also on the disk side, I can't say I have ever looked at how much space is required for a game before buying it. If I need to clear out some stuff I will. Especially with it not being uncommon for a game to be in the 100gb realm already.

That all being said, I am actually surprised by the 11% using mechanical hard drives. I figured that NVME would be a lower percentage and many are using SSD's... but I figured the percent with machines capable of running modern games in the first place with mechanical drives would be far lower.

I do wonder how long it will be until we see games just saying they are not compatible with mechanical drives.

To add some additional context to the other comment, the Apple TV App launched before the Apple TV+ streaming service. About 3 years before.

The point of the app was to consolidate all of your watching across various services to a single source. It could work with third party apps and can sign up for various streaming services from within the app. This is a major way it differentiates from the Amazon Prime app that you can still use the third party apps.

So it playing third party content was always the point of the app, Apple TV+ just fit nicely within that app. Less them being competitors and more just why it exists in the first place.

Netflix to my knowledge is the only one that is resistant to using this service, I have not seen any other not work with it. The app is very convenient for keeping up with what I watch across services.

(Admittedly this is where Apple's naming on the Apple TV has been really bad).

In this particular situation I am referring to the Apple TV App not the OS or Hardware. The ability to find shows and movies to watch across all (except netflix) of your streaming services.

According to the article they dropped support for Airplay a while ago.

Netflix seems to basically do everything in their power to own the experience of using Netflix as much as possible, short of making a device and OS themselves.

This and refusing to work with the Apple TV app are the 2 big examples that come to mind but there are likely others.

I am not really sure what this solves though since you would still be using their app.

Them refusing to work with the Apple TV app was one of my biggest reasons for canceling. They really need to get knocked down a few pegs.

Agreed, if teaching really was not bi-directional than there is zero reason for there to actually be a teacher in the first place when it could just be a book.

There are some bad teachers where it is not bidirectional for sure. But to claim it isn't (or at least is not supposed to be)... is wild

Did... someone make a bot to try to post a summary to HN with an LLM that also completely fails at being accurate (which is incredibly fitting given what the topic here is)

I got so angry that I turned off RCS on my iPhone after I was somewhere with limited service, I was sending messages and they were being seriously delayed. Friends were trying to reach me and the same was happening. I finally broke down and got out of the group chat I was in and messaged the friend in the group chat that had iMessage and things worked great (still spotty but at least I did not think that things were working when they were not).

I don't know or frankly care where the problem is but it has made me swear off RCS completely. iMessage works and SMS gets the job done when I can't use iMessage.

I know why Google is pushing RCS so hard, but that alone should be concerning.

I mean, that is kinda exactly what I said..

But we do have to acknowledge that AI is very much turned into an all encompassing term of everything ML. It is getting harder and harder to read an article about something being done with "AI" and to know if it was a custom purpose built model to do a specific task or is it throwing data into an LLM and hoping for the best.

They are purposefully making it harder and harder to just say "No AI" by obfuscating this so we have to be very specific about what we are talking about.

Yes and no and this is the problem with the current marketing around AI.

I very much do want what used to be just called ML that was invisible and actually beneficial. Autocorrect, smart touch screen keyboards, music recommendations, etc. But the problem is that all of that stuff is now also just being called "AI" left and right.

That being said I think what most people think of when they say "AI" is really not as beneficial as they are trying to push. It has some uses but I think most of those uses are not going to be in your face AI as we are pushing now and instead in the background.

I feel like I am missing something here, and it is around it being called "hemp".

Does this actually have any impact on legal dispensaries, their products, farms, etc?

Does this make it harder to eventually de-schedule pot.

Very very few people actually fundamentally disagree with the core idea of identification to vote.

The problem is the act of getting the ID itself. In most (all?) states getting an ID is not free, takes time, and if you lost everything will require jumping through a lot of hoops.

If getting an ID was actually simple, free, and not time consuming than we could have a genuine discussion about ID requirements. But until that point it is very thinly veiled classism and racism.

Also the numbers just simply don't back up this being a serious issue to begin with.

TLDR: Fix the fundamental issues with having identification in the first place and we can talk.

This screams just as genuine as Google saying anything about Privacy.

Both companies are clearly wrong here. There is a small part of me that kinda wants openai to loose this, just so maybe it will be a wake up call to people putting in way too personal of information into these services? Am I too hopeful here that people will learn anything...

Fundamentally I agree with what they are saying though, just don't find it genuine in the slightest coming from them.

Is there an article that has the US pricing anywhere? It doesn't look like any of these are on the US site yet so I am curious what these will actually cost.

I keep hoping that Ikea would come up with something that can go over a switch to manually control it. Seems like it would be very much within Ikea's target market (renters). There are devices like this on Amazon but having used them in the past they are finicky at best.

> When I use AI to perform X, every single time I run that AI from now until the heat death of the sun it will maybe produce Y. Forever! When it does, we don't understand why, and when it doesn't, we also don't understand why!

To make this even worse, it may even produce Y just enough times to make it seem reliable and then it is unleashed without supervision, running thousands or millions of times, wrecking havoc producing Z in a large number of places.

I honestly thought the same and kind of just gave up the idea of hitting that at night and being done.

Figured having 4 OS installations was already fairly niche that it was largely a self imposed issue. Looking forward to confirming that this fixes the issue in my use case.

By that logic I don't understand why you don't just drink raw sewage instead of waiting for it to be processed and made safe.

The act of making cheese is processing the raw milk. Fun fact Pasteurized milk was also once raw.

Same with meat but basically no one advocates eating raw chicken.

Why am I explaining that things change from a raw to a processed state and becomes safe to consume...

At the end of the day competition for SpaceX is a good thing so we don't become reliant on a single company and the whims of the person that owns it.

I don't know enough about whether or not they really are behind or if this is just a bit of sensationalized reporting. But this is how it should have likely been from the beginning.

> I still dislike the term "hallucinations". It comes across like the model did something wrong. It did not, as factually wrong outputs happen per design.

While I do see the issue with the word hallucination providing a humanization to the models, I have yet to come up or see a word that so well explains the problem to non technical people. And quite frankly those are the people that need to understand that this problem still very much exists and is likely never going away.

Technically yeah the model is doing exactly what it is supposed to do and you could argue that all of its output is "hallucination". But for most people the idea of a hallucinated answer is easy enough to understand without diving into how the systems work, and just confusing them more.

It solved “a” problem buy not “the” problem.

It depends on what the goal of all of this was, which is unclear. If the goal was simply to get the data that they originally wanted it does not solve that problem and it would have just happened a different way.

According to the article there was 11 days between the first actions taken and them finding out it happened.

If instead of a root account you have a long running IAM user that you can then assume into the role you normally use through SSO. If you also do not monitor that account with proper alerts and proper offboarding procedures than they could have logged into that account and retrieved the data they wanted.

Which again is the reason I am saying they just saying not using root is not a magic bullet that would have avoided problems. Maybe the situation would have been different but they still could have done a lot in 11 days.

To me that sounds like security by obscurity not actual security.

If you have the ability to go through the reset flow than then why is that much different than the username and password being available to a limited sets of users. That would not have prevented this from happening if the determination was made that all 3 of these users need the ability to possibly get into root.

As far as having an IAM user, I fail to see how that is actually that much better. You still have a user sitting there with long running credentials that need to be saved somewhere that is outside of how you normally access AWS. Meaning it is also something that could be easily missed if someone left.

Sure yes you could argue that the root user and that IAM user would have drastically different permissions, but the core problem would still exist.

But then you are adding another account(s) on top of the root account that must exist that you now need to worry about.

Regardless of the option you take, the root of the problem they had was 2fold. Not only did they not have alerts on the usage of the root account (which they would still need if they switched to having long running IAM users instead, but now they would also need to monitor root since that reset flow exists) and their offboarding workflow did not properly rotate that password, which a similar problem would also exist with a long running IAM user to delete that account.

At the end of the day there is not a perfect solution to this problem, but I think just saying that you would never use root is ignoring several other issues that don't go away just by not using root.

> In 2025 there's no reason for anyone to be logging into an AWS account via the root credentials and this should have been addressed in the preventative measures.

I am curious what preventative measures you expect in this situation? To my knowledge it is not actually possible to disable the root account. They also had it restricted to only 3 people with MFA which also seems pretty reasonable.

It is not unheard of that there could be a situation where your ability to login through normal means (like lets say it relies on Okta and Okta goes down) and you need to get into the account, root may be your only option in a disaster situation. Given this was specifically for oncall someone having that makes sense.

Not saying there were not failures because there clearly are, but there have been times I have had to use root when I had no other option to get into an account.

Is it bad that I am more surprised that this is a third party tool and not something that google is developing internally?

That sure seems like a gold mine of information for them to consume.

I have lost count of how many jobs train me specifically to look at the URL's in emails by hovering over them to confirm that it is legitimate.

And then put fucking mimecast infront of everything so I legit can't do what they are training me to do...

So yeah, the training is worthless and just there to tick a box.

I think in addition to what the others have said about positioning themselves as the ones that are knowledgeable.

Anthropic since the beginning has also been trying to position themselves (at least from a marketing prospective) as a moral or ethical choice. Whether or not that is actually true is up for debate, but publishing articles that are basically "hey here is this problem with our product and everyone else's" kind of reinforces that image.

Nearly everything about this screams I, Robot and it is kinda wild that they went that route with this article. The package delivery and the quick intro and head turning in particular.

I agree on the data part. I love the potential idea of a humanoid robot at home to take care of chores, but now it seems like the potential for it not being constantly connected and collecting data is gone out the window.

I find it quite strange that they are openly bragging about how much data it will be gathering and uploading from within your home. That feels like the part you would not say out loud.

I have no doubt that most of the blame here is on drivers. Way too often I see cars running red lights, barely paying attention, turning the wrong way on a one way, etc etc.

That being said, (and to be clear I say this as someone that does not own a car). I also have been seeing more and more people not paying attention and just walking while staring at their phone. No walk symbol or anything. I have frustratingly had to grab my partner multiple times doing exactly this and almost walking into a car that was following the rules.

Seriously if your walking (especially in a car centric area) you don't need to be doom scrolling through Instagram or whatever other crap your looking at. Quickly changing music, sending a text, whatever is one thing but I don't understand needing to look at Instagram while walking.

And not just so you don't get killed by cars, the number of times these people almost walk into other people is insane...

I have to wonder how much to 3 new NAS systems from Ubiquiti played into this. They seem pretty targeted at Synology at a great price. I have the original UNAS pro and it has been fantastic.

Sure I can't run apps on it, but how much do people really run apps on their synology vs just use it as a basic NAS to begin with? I never found any of the apps really all that great to begin with. The only one I kinda liked was synology sync but really don't need something like that with freesync.

So we learn nothing from the danger of having AI write legal documents: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45335774

If your company can't afford to pay the right people to write proper legal documentation than I would have zero trust that your application is properly secured in the first place.

> Hallucinations have been reduced.

Do you have any studies or data to back this up other than "trust us" from the companies pushing the models?

And how much "reduced". It is still a fundamental issue that is just being pushed under the rug since it is inconvenient for them to talk about anymore.

> There are, in fact, reasoning models.

Simulated (fake) reasoning models. They are still fundamentally LLM's talking to itself which goes back to the fundamental issue of hallucination and a complete inability for anything original.

Also this "reasoning" has been shown in multiple studies to fall flat on its face with complex issues because it is not true reasoning. There is no intelligence or "thinking" behind it.

> The "ifs" are not as theoretical as you imply.

My reason for saying it is because it always seems when someone is critical of claims being made the response is 1 of 2 things.

1. Trying to ignore the concerns and just say that it can already do X, its magic, its whatever.

Or 2. It is all about the promise. All about what it may supposedly one day be able to do "if" we can just fix this one thing that isn't somehow a huge fundamental issue.