terminalbraid

> Trust me, I hate Tesla and Elon as much as the next naysayer

But then you go to defend them as if it were something you're obligated to do. I think you demonstrably do not hate Tesla and Elon as much as the next naysayer.

in accordance with the inscrutable decisions made by capitalist lawmakers

I'm imagining a hoard of angry Taoists led by the ghost of Le Guin very upset that the wisdom was not paid for in accordance with the inscrutable decisions made by capitalist lawmakers.

You are mistaken.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Microsoft has been issuing fixes like this with alarmingly increasing frequency.

You say that like the LLM must be built and retrained on ads rather than a separate scan of the prompt

But that's absolutely not generative AI (which bandcamp explicitly stated the policy is for) and it's not even classifiable as traditional AI. The session tracks are just some base patterns selected by sliders attached to options adjust stuff like "play these notes in an inverted chord".

> new sounds and musical forms

Has it done this? Or does it just make things that sound like what it's trained on?

> I'd like to think HN is generally better at this than most communities, but it's hard to imagine we're immune.

This is a zero-barrier-to-entry forum (not even an email required!) that has the eyes of a people prone to being involved with startups. Why would you think in any way this would be better than an average equivalent? Because you don't personally notice it?

Did you read the article at all? No, it was an actual catastrophe. There was damage, years of disruption for the work going on down there, a close call for the people working down there, years of cleanup running half a billion dollars.

The strength of argument you're making reminds me of an onion headline.

https://theonion.com/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mi...

"This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism vs. No It Won’t"

If you talk to people who deal with inference using large fungible datasets, this is an extremely difficult governance problem. semver is incredibly insufficient and you don't have a well defined meaning of what "upgrade" even means let alone "major", "minor", and "patch".

It's a major disservice to the problem to act like it's new and solved or even solvable using code revision language.

But that's objectively not true unless you're just trolling or being sarcastic? The cost and reach of ground based systems still has a considerable amount of use, still have many projects of those types ongoing. There's been a ton of great work on things like adaptive optics and laser guides have been excellent breakthroughs in extending that reach.

You say that like it's mutually exclusive.

It is a joke. Microsoft is the joke.

> They believe those platforms are "public spaces" while they truly are "private spaces trying to destroy all other public spaces in order to get a monopoly."

There's nothing I can add to this.

> decoherence

This has a specific meaning and is not a word I would use here. For something to be "decoherent" the particle phases would need to be "uncorrelated" or "random", but given the internal wavelengths, masses, and strength of the interaction of the particles involved against the spatial dimension of the proton this is not the case under quantum field theory.

In some ways the problem of this being "complicated" is because it's intractably coherent with a fluctuating large number of particles interacting via three "colors" of self-interacting charge (very different from electric charge and not just "three" independent charges) to consider. I'd put money on any decoherence would likely simplify the problem.

> Normally, the universe only asks protons the question: "are you a proton?" and it's like "Yep I'm a proton." (What's your baryon number? What's your charge? etc)

Protons have internal structure (the quarks and gluons) and size. Those are relevant to its interactions. To consider a proton "by itself" and just reduced to quantum numbers is not "normal" if by "normal" you mean "protons at a scale in nature you deal with every day". Those protons are bound in nuclei and are modified by the fact they are bound. These effects have been explicitly measured and documented, the EMC effect being one of them. The "new questions" you are referring to are in fact relevant questions at low energies and are not "new". They are a large active area of research typically referred to as "medium energy" (despite the fact it extends into "low" energy traditional nuclear physics and high energy QCD physics).

Even in a hydrogen atom, the internal structure of the proton modifies the chemistry by small changes in the electronic shell energies, in particular contributions to the lamb shift which has been used to measure the radius of the proton.

Maybe most directly, if what you described were the case you wouldn't have so many decimals in atomic mass numbers of nuclei.

> So having different answers based on how you look is really answering different questions, just like asking an electron: What's your momentum? What's your location?

The problems of looking at quarks and gluons at different energy scales are also endemic to other forces (e.g. electromagnetic) and all particles (for example, look up the running of coupling constants and renormalization theory). Saying they are "different" questions is more akin to comparing questions of skyscraper engineering and concrete dust mechanics. They are not orthogonal as I would consider momentum and location. They're questions of scale and things like emergent effects at different scales.

There are orthogonal questions of internal structure to be considered, though. Deep inelastic scattering processes at high energies tend to ask the "what are the momentum" questions. Elastic nucleon form factors ask more the "location". They both exist in a unified framework of "generalized parton distributions".

You're also trying to argue against a nonzero number of literal physicists who do this type of thinking for a living.

Why do you say they're "pretty well understood" when there's been a long-standing unresolved discrepancy between lifetime measurement techniques?

One lesson I'm taking away from this is never to buy or use Apple gift cards

But you wouldn't call them a craftsperson because they didn't do any craft other than "be a manager". Reviewing work is not on the same plane as actually creating something.

What? You can find tons of textbook examples when dealing with the uncountable sets from non-deterministic finite automata. Those frequently deal with power sets (like when you have an infinite alphabet) which are quintessentially uncountable

Maybe the community should use less of github if github doesn't provide features the community finds useful.

Until you get yourself into a sunk cost fallacy and don't understand a sunk cost fallacy but only quarterly number go up.

I'll bite: What part of the game, which is encoded entirely by a finite set of numbers, takes input as numbers, provides output as numbers, and is processed by a CPU that acts in a discrete digital space, cannot be represented by numbers?

I'll posit it's because the virial theorem is applicable to the time average of a stable system and is therefore a specific case. The time average is not a requirement for this discussion (i.e. dynamics) and invoking that theorem is unnecessary. Ergo it is not a consequence.

There's a book "Against Creativity" by Oli Mould which is on this topic. The title is about the redirection of creativity into monetizing everything. It hypothesizes that any current counterculture gets bought out by the system and sold back to society while those creators effectively get golden handcuffs to not rock the boat meaningfully.

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Creativity-Oli-Mould-ebook/dp...

It's what happens when companies are driven by profit rather than making accurate scientific statements that reputation is built by and further research funding is predicated on.

Hyperbolic claims like this are for shareholders who aren't qualified to judge for themselves because they're interested in future money and not actual understanding. This is what happens when you delegate science to corporations.

I'd posit that Google's large infusions of cash are what is keeping Mozilla afloat right now rather than including things like AI features.

It is in fact Waterfox for all the same reasons less unnecessary Mozilla trash