random3

these better?

https://schakowsky.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/schakowsky.h...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/mad-meta-dont-let-them...

Not many digital cameras, not enough bandwidth for multimedia either. Your “face” was a nickname.

That’s because they have such a good track record wrt to privacy? https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_Distri...

The author describes hiring strategy relative to Fed policy as one assumption that presumably motivates the current context in the market, but completely fails to make a point about AI, or to generally back their claims. In fact, even the main claim seems to be pulled out of the hat wrt to Europe where there’s no Fed. No hiring/layoff numbers, etc. I get it that it’s just a guy with a blog, but it’s on top of HN now, and IMO vacuous, describing one motivation that’s been floating around for quite some time. Perhaps as long as they wanted to write about it until this “last straw”

David Patterson is such a legend! From RAID to RISC and one of the best books in computer architecture, he's on my personal hall of fame.

Several years ago I was at one of the Berkley AMP Lab retreats at Asilomar, and as I was hanging out, I couldn't figure how I know this person in front of me, until an hour later when I saw his name during a panel :)).

It was always the network. And David Patterson, after RISC, started working on iRAM, that was tackling a related problem.

NVIDIA bought Mellanox/Infiniband, but Google has historically excelled at networking, and the TPU seems to be designed to scale out in the best possible way.

"The Alabama Solution" (nominated for best documentary, 2025) is a mind-blowing documentary about the prison system. Indeed, everything gets through prison guards. In that case, the problem was that inmates were self-educating in law, and figured out that their highest leverage is financial and organized strikes targeting free revenue from almost-unpaid labor.

So it makes sense, to avoid these "problems" by restricting books, given that the revenue from contraband with drugs and everything else continues to work through prison guards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alabama_Solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Alabama_Movement

This :))) or the other way around

why do you think buying twitter was dumb?

People can’t care about stuff they don’t know about. Split the roles and you split responsibility. It’s the same with dev and QA. Suddenly, the person paid to care about quality or stability realizes that the person who’s paid for something else doesn’t care like their job depends on it. Because it doesn’t. So OP above is right, splitting things and specializing horizontally is most times a bad and, if you think about it, not very smart move.

Italy's policy seems an abomination and Cloudflare seems to have a point from a commercial position. But that they do have this amount of leverage is a much bigger problem:

> Yet the core issue is infrastructural. For years, Europe has allowed vital parts of the internet to fall into the hands of American companies

Or, is the core infrastructural issue that for the past 20+ years Internet protocols have stalled, yielding capabilities almost exclusively to centralized (and apparently highly concentrated) commercial services.

This is cool. I was hoping to see progress coming from Zed (e.g. because Tree-sitter → https://github.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-markdown) but it's exciting to see this. I'm a heavy Obsidian user, and I love it, but I'd love to see real alternatives focused on foundations.

It would be interesting to know more about the end-goal if any.

Best of luck! I'll watch this.

And what's the connection with the thread?

lol - Chrome does the same - state management is pure crap

This sort of denies there was any purpose to keep the tab open to begin with.

The problem is hardly a resource one (unless you restart the browser) - you can’t see/scroll/wrangle 2000 tabs with the current tab display UI paradigm— you can’t even see their titles. Not to speak that Chrome state management is crap and you’ll end up losing them

You know in a chrome you can search through tabs, right?

To clarify - is Internet, the browser (to which tabs are implicit) not the “correct” abstraction either? What are you trying to say?

Maybe, but at least Open AI, XAI and any Bostrom believer thinks this is the case.

Ilya Sutskever (Sep 20, 2017)

> The goal of OpenAI is to make the future good and to avoid an AGI dictatorship. You are concerned that Demis could create an AGI dictatorship. So do we. So it is a bad idea to create a structure where you could become a dictator if you chose to, especially given that we can create some other structure that avoids this possibility.

Nick Bostrom - Decisive Strategic Advantage https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vkjWGJrFWBnzHtxrw/superintel...

If anyone believes they're close to a generalization end-game wrt to AI capabilities, it makes no sense to do anything that could impact their advantage, by enabling others to compete. Collaboration makes sense on timeframes that don't imply zero-sum games.

Board games like the Settlers of Catan are good examples of the behavior— concretely the start of the game when everyone trades vs the end of the game when if you suspect someone wins it makes little sense to trade unless, you think it will help you win first.

This. Every time Apple made Ui changes, I’ve seen negative reactions. People react negatively to change, not to good or bad necessarily. I’ve been using the ne UI since it was in the developer beta, and can’t really tell a practical difference.

Possibly. I don't think either extreme opinion is correct— i.e., both can be partially correct, hence we may agree on that. Merit is often arbitrarily attributed (and sometimes, perhaps often enough, wrongly). I don't think that's enough to say that that's "always" or "most often" the case. That was my main point. You argued that no one does something strictly alone or from scratch. I think the "from scratch" part is irrelevant and think that a single person, a very small group, or a few independently (even if at different points in time) still warrants the same individual recognition.

Neither really fits what Jürgen Schmidhuber argues for. He clearly argues against intentional non-attribution and/or ignorance. Both are evidently the case deeply in current AI research (probably also outside, but this is what OP is about). At the same time, claiming that his points are worthless because he's just pointing to other individuals that suffer from the same misattribution problem is generally a wrong take. Work concentration and results are simply non-linear and generally clustered around individuals and groups. Failing to attribute, either from ignorance or malice, is equally wrong.

Given the current trends in publishing "productivity" that may not be a bad thing.

Sorry, but having two people instead of one pushing for similar/related ideas is not supporting the main claim ("we sanctify some sole individuals while forgetting the bulk of the community"). Nor is stealing ideas and having the wrong name on results. It's rather common to have multiple names in theorems because of this. That's still beside the point, when claiming it's the "community" or hive mind.

It's not that I don't see where you're coming from. What's been gesticulating at is called "Stigler's law of eponymy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy). Pythagorean theorem was known 1000 years before Pythagoras and a ton of results are wrongly attributed to. But that doesn't make revolutions a collective effort.

Was Galois', Gödel's or Grothendieck's work obviously the common sense of the community? Or wasn't it the "community" that tried to "solve" the parallel postulate for 2000 years before Bolyai did?

Or maybe everyone in the Copenhagen crowd cheered Bohm, Everett and Bell because it was all obvious in the community?

Thanks for the link, but when I said "do homework" I didn't mean podcasts :), but rather either general or concrete work in the history and philosophy of science, like Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of scientific revolutions".

It's Juergen Schmidhuber's Google Scholar page

Strong claims - maybe good time to do some homework instead of arguing without evidence?

Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for heresy. Boltzmann died by suicide after lack of acceptance by the scientific community. It's a very long list and something that's been studied, actually.

I'll just leave this here https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gLnCTgIAAAAJ&hl=en so maybe you realize that's a bit of a tall claim from a random about one of the top researchers in AI, no matter what their opinions are. Perhaps you should look up what a "crank" actually is before labeling researchers, just because they don't match your religion.

I see where you're coming from, but while that's the case with most stuff ("normal science") , it often isn't the case for truly revolutionary stuff. Many breakthroughs happen not because of the bulk of the community, but against it, often at the highest cost for the individuals.

I just remembered I have a Xilinx I bought over a decade ago lying around somewhere. I don't remember ever plugging it in, but I do both the excitement of getting it and trying to figure out the toolchain and getting confused.

Love the functional programming entry, but disappointed it’s not the Year of the Linux Desktop.

Based on this rationale nobody should use Linux either =))