strangattractor

Thank you Onion.

Sounds like an attempt to analyze the very thing the article claims should not be analyzed.

According to ChatGPT:

"Some estimates suggest that a significant portion—perhaps 30% to 50%—of what you see in marketing claims about AI may be exaggerated or overly optimistic. "

My own estimation is that is on the low side.

Yes I distinctly remember all the drunk salarymen showing up at around 2 in the morning and waking me. I also forgot to open the air vents and woke up gasping for oxygen. On the plus side the hotel had a wonderful bath which was really relaxing after the 12 hour flight.

I think we're turning Japanese. Capsule Hotels have been around forever. I stayed in one in the '90s. If you take their nightly rate $24 X 30 days it magically works out to $720 per month. Call it a hotel, sleeping pod whatever you want we are behind the curve on sleeping pod technology. We need to catch up.

Mr Musk is correct - a shrinking population will endanger his ability to make even more money.

The only people that want more people are the ones that have the means (financial) to negate all the negative aspects over population creates. They do not have to worry about medical care, shop, wait in lines or count their pennies when they spend money. TSA is not even a thing for you if you have your own jet. Life is good for billionaires. Quality of life for the masses only gets worse.

M$ is just having a "Oh I just bought Twitter for how much?" moment.

Yes - an how did that benefit Apple at the time? You could take all the computers built with a Scorpius processor and put them in your hand. Not even a hand because there were none. There is a great deal more to adopting a CPU than simply it works. There needs to be tools, a foundry, scale to reduce cost. It was that type of thinking that almost destroyed Apple in the late 80s early 90s. Sometimes Engineers think that just because something is "great" engineering it is automatically a great product. Sadly Microsoft proved that thinking to be incorrect.

Because the electric car market is tanking maybe? Reminds me of when Apple bought a Cray computer that they had absolutely no use for. Musk likely feels that X.com is not losing money fast enough. One of the most efficient ways to burn money is to place mindless bets on incredibly expensive technologies without having a true purpose.

> "HN, it is time to make a stand if you want to keep the internet free."

That ship sailed long ago:(

Hayao Miyazaki's thoughts on an artificial intelligence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngZ0K3lWKRc&t=47s

Zero investment of my time or resources - I already know how to eat pi - nothing to learn or experiment. If it is the same pie I had before and did not like I don't even bother to try it. Of course if it is different than pie I had before I might try it but apparently I should not even ask.

When a User adopts a new piece of software an investment of time and effort is necessary (not so for eating a pie). If a particular piece of software doesn't do anything to improve the User's current process it is a wasted investment. If the User currently doesn't use a similar piece of software because they found what is available lacking then why invest if the new software doesn't do anything different.

Asking how a product is different is always relevant when allocation of your own resources is involved.

The "Dear Moon" project [1] promised to Yusaku Maezawa by Musk back in 2018 [2] was cancelled in 2023 because he just could not determine when SpaceX would deliver. So don't feel bad about your FSB purchase - it happens to the richest of us;)

[1] https://dearmoon.earth/ [2] https://www.geekwire.com/2018/spacex-elon-musk-bfr-around-mo...

When Musk announces a pre-sale of tickets to Mars it might be a good idea to pass;)

Maybe Zuck should apologize for that - he's quite good at groveling to Congress. He may also want to apologize to investors for totally shifting Meta's focus to VR despite it being clear that it is not as big as he claimed. But he likes being underestimated.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/news/mark-zuckerberg-rather-under...

Agreed: Most of the computers from earlier eras did not have the speed, memory or disk space to even remotely support most of the CS practices today. The raw speed, multiple cores and gargantuan memories of today's CPUs makes things like AI feasible. Many of the ideas we use today existed in the late 50s and 60s. They simply were not practical to implement.

Cynicism forgiven. I would point out that most of the powerful are also very, very rich. Might be difficult to separate the two.

I am not making a "those were the good ole days" argument - the News "business" changed in a fundamental way. The objective became to "make money" as opposed to "deliver news". The profit motive changes everything - taking that thinking to a logical conclusion you end up with 2 minute videos that are chosen specifically to punch your buttons so you will keep watching. The way in which people consume their news now is simply chaos.

https://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-net...

Old enough to remember Cronkite or MacNeil Lehrer - there was a time with more facts less ideology. Ever since the news became a profit center it just isn't as useful. One literally has to follow double digit numbers of outlets to get a reasonable picture of reality. It is simply too costly. The News rooms have become their own undoing.

Or the Archive's intent is long term preservation. I don't think the intention is to be a free source for access to copyrighted material. There is no perfect solution I think. Far more digital content disappears each day than most people realize. [1]

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/data-labs/2024/05/17/when-online...

Some Governments (US...) require that government sites be archived. There is a service for that.

https://www.archive-it.org/

Surprisingly no one stopped to take selfie:)

Totally missed the point I'm afraid so I don't feel bad or inhuman like you intended. I asked multiple questions

1. What data backs up the law? Answer a bunch of studies primarily on foster kids in some unidentified State. This could be a state like Louisiana for example. So it did not answer the quest whether CA had this problem and had nothing to do with districts policy.

2. What does the law accomplish? If it is intended to help foster kids it may do so tangentially but given we don't see studies on CA foster kids I guess we still don't know.

3. Is this a problem in CA? It was commented by several people that districts in CA were trying to make reporting mandatory. No references or data were supplied. I finally found my own reference and supplied it to the thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/gavi...

There is actually a district, Chino, was trying to to make it a policy. My mind has now changed about the law.

To paraphrase you - "So let me see if this is a rephrasing of your point: I am not going to put forth the mental effort necessary to take you points seriously so I will make a snide comment instead."

I had similar discussions with people that wanted to encode published research into ontologies. I would ask researchers what they think - the answer was always great idea. I would then follow up with - How would you use it? No response. I finally concluded that it would never happen.

1. No one wanted it enough to pay for it to happen.

2. There is always a turn over of ideas coming and going which can never be sufficiently updated to keep it useful. Again no one would pay anyway.

Tools like LLMs seem to be fill the role now. I would like to see a Prolog integrated with LLMs is someway (lack of imagination fails me how that would happen).

Found a pretty good article at the Guardian. Chino seems to be having the beef.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/gavi....

I understand what it does. I asked a different question - is it necessary? Please give your references. I am not able to find any data on school districts in CA doing what you said. It could very well be true - I would likely change my opinion with more info.

I do not disagree with the intent of the law. Previously I was pointed to a bunch of research on foster care LGBTQ+ youth in good knows what state being bullied or having problems with their foster care. None of which specifically pertained to CA. I do not see how we can continue to create laws to solve problems we do not understand. CA is a large state and can afford to do the home work. S

"The measure Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Monday, is the first to rebuke laws in a handful of other states that say educators must alert parents if a student requests to go by a different name or pronouns. At least 10 states say educators and classmates don’t have to use a student’s name or pronouns if it doesn’t align with a student’s sex assigned at birth." [1]

[1] https://www.edweek.org/leadership/should-schools-tell-parent....

So the law was passed to fix a problem that does not exist in CA.

In what way will this law prevent or improve the situation?

This law seems to be in reaction to laws that were passed in other states requiring the reporting. We don't have that in CA. Having looked at your sources I would agree there are problems but pronoun protection seems to be the least useful solution and likely posturing by certain politicians with Presidential ambitions. IMHO

First the :) means I was somewhat joking. Second as much as I love CA the state has become increasingly interested in creating unenforcible and intrusive laws. Although I can see a case for protecting children from abusive parents (we have laws for that already) it seems to ignore other things. Like the following:

1. AFAIK - If a kid decides to change their pronoun around their friends the school is not required to report that now and would likely not even know or care. If they do no make an official request to Teachers or staff etc then who's to know. This reminds of when fundamentalist claimed prayer was banned in schools. That has never been the case. School lead or Staff lead prayer was banned. Any child that wished to pray before eating lunch was totally free to do so.

2. It assumes that knee jerk reaction on the part of all fundamentalist parents. (feels weird for an atheist to defend fundamentalist but here we are)

3. Where's the data to back this decision up?

4. There are likely situations where it might be important for the parent to know what their child is doing. What if they are in a cult and want to change their name to unintelligible gibberish - wait Musk is probably ok with that. What if someone is convincing them to get illegal surgery?