Don't imply or wink and nudge. Say what you mean to say. Your example is either a non sequiter like mine, or it's implying something while avoiding saying the actual thing you are trying to convey.
127 karma · joined February 13, 2025
Don't imply or wink and nudge. Say what you mean to say. Your example is either a non sequiter like mine, or it's implying something while avoiding saying the actual thing you are trying to convey.
This isn't just run of the mill capitalism bad, this is truly exceptionally vile and staining.
Which is different from chattel slavery, of course. But it's still an extant theory that gets discussed widely. It would seem an AI company to be a labor panopticon would align with the critiques raised by the concept of wage slavery.
#2 degree basically never comes up, except if someone is saying they had an atypical degree path. And institution? Never, unless it's a part of someone's identity and they are a big "I am a college team guy"
Airing their shit out is a disclosure of a vulnerability, and it's important to do. Typically you reach out to say, "how would you prefer I do this?" And work through a common understanding. The company flipped the bird, so it got aired very publicly.
1978.
Until 1978, Native American families were being separated against their will.
To say that no one currently alive screwed then over is absurd. This month, the President made motions to try and remove birthright citizenship for indigenous people.
No, there are absolutely people still alive who screwed them over.
I much more strongly suspect it was "we're going to hire one person to do the work of three" and the result was "get it working as quick as I can".
Now, some schools will give you more educational opportunities and better education, but honestly? The margins aren't that huge.
People have eaten bugs around the world forever, from prehistory to modern times.
Scorpions, snails, ants, silkworms, grasshoppers, bees, and yes, mealworms, all have long long long histories of being a part of human diets. See also Carmine and shellac.
You live a sheltered life that hasn't been exposed to this extremely normal phenomena.
Americans love to root for teams and build their identities around what teams they are on. In sports, in politics, in college selection, even which state or city they are from. College selection is just an easy way to buy yourself into a team.
But no, some people have to punch down, which means others have to develop defenses that assume all punches are punching down.
If nothing else, it would seem bigotry is highly inefficient.
Unless you mean the folks who believe AI will become AGI and start hurting people directly. Those folks are pretty fringe.
Maybe people think you are kind of creepy for being so insistent (and hyperbolically so)?
An ML image generator designed to repaint someone as a lumberjack should work equally well for all users, no matter the actual real world demographics. So the training dataset needs to account for this demographic bias if it wants to not overfit.
This isn't some recent "woke" phenomena, this has been known about large ML projects for at least a decade, if not longer.
If you are training a model to respond on automated test failures, you don't want to sample real world test data in proportion to automated test results, because most automated tests pass. This is also demographic bias and needs to be handled depending on what you want the model to learn.
Yes, this is what the author is pointing out - there's a statistical bias in the dataset that is showing in the results.
At the very least, these tires are subject to higher forces due to the heavier weights of EVs. Intuitively, consistently applying higher friction forces to an object would cause higher wear.
It's like watching one of those hydraulic press videos - the slow build up of the squeeze has been happening for awhile, we've finally arrived at the point where the pressure is really deforming stuff. But it was predictable for a long time.
I'll dig up some more. They tend to be a bit stochastic, and on various topics. (There was an article that made the front page awhile back written about pg that was written by a trans woman that was an absolute lightning rod for this, iirc.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42907076
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42783776
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42780835
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42718838
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42708579
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42700319
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43034231
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43031405
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42959625
My methodology: Search for any of the following terms: woman, biological, Black, Latino, gay, trans, woke, dei, or virtue signal
Set to "Comments" and "30 days". You'll find plenty of people saying things that are pretty awful. Yes, they are not the majority of posts, this place isn't a cesspool, it's just a place that permits "just asking questions" or "it's up for debate" as a defense for behavior
I could find many, MANY more examples.
I can dig up many such examples, but I suspect the response would be, "of course that's not moderated" because this community has a different set of values than some others.
Moderation is always an editorial action, and as such we tend to view it as strong when it aligns with our own values and weak when it doesn't.
The secret is to have a healthy system for taking in those requests, queueing them by priority, and saying, "you are 117 in the queue, you can make it faster by contributing or by explaining why its higher priority".
You can't let feature requests get to you, the moment you do your users become your opponent. None of those requests are entitled, the author has clearly already reached a point where they are antagonistic towards requests.