Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstarfish | Hacker News Reader

It's safer in the bank. At least you defer dealing with thieves to someone else.

Indian communities around me were getting hit hard by home invasions and robbery some years ago once it became known that they hold and trade large amounts of gold in their homes.

Money attracts thieves like food attracts bears. Store it somewhere away from yourself.

Besides, no safe is fireproof. At best they are fire-resistant. Good luck getting to your money while your house is burning (lol) or after it collapses.

View on HN

Don't keep all your money in your home. That is stupid. 1-10% of your take home pay is reasonable for an emergency. Is it safer in your home? No. Is it 24/7 available? Yes. And it will be 100% confidential if you keep your mouth shut.

2/3 > 1/3

But some safes are Reddit proof when discovered during remodels.

The reason they don’t want AI open to the internet (and public) is how easily one can identify money laundering and stock/real estate fraud.

> The reason they don’t want AI open to the internet (and public) is how easily one can identify money laundering and stock/real estate fraud.

What do you mean?

Using gpt I came been able to recreate some aspects of market research and due diligence which previously took me weeks, in seconds.

And this was with some sample data (meaning history gpt already had)

But I’ve been doing a bunch of tests on combining checks and tables and data from sources and it’s astonishing

The reason they are afraid of AI is because of it had actual access to online data - the world economy would be upended and we would be killing billionaires, companies, politicians in the streets given how blatantly obvious all their actions are and the colluding and corruption which is fingertips away.

All their actions have been blatantly obvious for decades. I'm pretty sure the threat of retaliation is what's stopping people from killing billionaires, not the lack of AI.

I retract "DUH" because that was rude, and I wasnt thinking.

That was pointed at myself as I typed as I was thinking to myself. Please take no offense.

connect

"have been blatantly obvious for decades"

YES

But *NOW* they are MINEABLE via AI to show any and all aspects.

DUH

Who would be mining this data in practice?

Who would publish these results to a wide audience?

Who would actually pursue the perpetrators of these abuses?

Everyone.

NOBODY.

NO-ONE WHO PROFITS.

> Besides, no safe is fireproof

lots of high-quality safes are more than capable of surviving a home fire

that doesn't mean paper stored inside is necessarily retrievable, but metal objects like gold or firearms would definitely be fine

some examples

https://www.sturdysafe.com/pages/gun-safes-survive-house-fir...

I don't think so. We had fire sweep through; I never heard of one safe protecting contents, out of thousands of structures. In every case I'm aware of, the contents were heated to the point of melting most metals, and reducing all papers to ash. Maybe not melting firearms, but definitely rendering them useless. In many cases, the safes failed to the degree you could kick them apart.

Regardless of insulation, when you put a container in a 1,500 degree environment, the stuff inside is going to be wrecked.

Maybe there are some models that would have worked, but I wouldn't trust any of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com