DarkNova6

I think openAI is doing the best they reasonably can to make people depend on their product and chase as much money and power as they possibly could.

Thanks! I wish I could claim credit to the lyrics, it was just created by Claude Opus. I think I should refine it some more, I think it can be done way better.

I asked Claude Opus 4.6 to take the Canyonero lyrics and mix it with all the controversies and this one in particular.

Spread the love!

Sorry, but every time I read news about the Cybertruck I have to think of the Simpsons Canyonero song:

Can you name the truck that's been recalled twelve times, Costs less each month 'cause nobody's buying mine?

Cybertruck! Cybertruck!

(Whip crack!)

Her trim falls off when you drive through rain, The steering locks up on the highway lane!

Cybertruck! Cybertruck!

Top of the line in utility trucks! Started at a hundred, now they're slashing bucks!

She's got a price that drops faster than her resale value, And a windshield wiper motor that'll surely fail you!

Cybertruck! Cybertruck!

(Whip crack!)

Twelve recalls in a single year! Drive-by-wire that fills your heart with fear!

The accelerator pedal pops right off the floor, But Elon says it's you who doesn't love her more!

Cybertruck!

She rusts if you look at her wrong in the dew, The tonneau cover works... for a week or two!

She's marked down like a Kmart blue-light special now, A stainless steel disaster and a broken vow!

Cybertruck! Cybertruck!

(Whip crack!)

Whoaaa, Cybertruck!

CYBERTRUCK!

I can definitely speak for all German speaking countries (Germany, Austria, but also Switzerland). Absolutely the UK as well. But really, Austerity was a trend that was followed by pretty much all EU countries since 2008 and the trend has not been reversed. And the Chinese have been buying european key industrial companies left and right going back as far as 2010.

Instituations haven't been renewed, education hasn't been brought up to reflect the latest reality of life and digitalization of state workflows? Hah, no.

But if a fraudulent bank requires saving? Sure, 500 billions or more can be paid upfront. Multiple times if necessary.

Investment, infrastructure, education. Same as China. Same as every other growing country.

What the US and most other western countries do are: Let infrastructure rot, defund education, reroute money to large corporations. This is how you end up with failed state.

I’ve had nothing but problems using GeoJson. The specification has limitations everywhere and doesn’t even support z + m values at the same time.

But thankfully there is also the SQLite backed GeoPackage, which is not only more flexible but also much smaller. It takes some extra steps to get testing teams working due to it’s binary nature, but other than that it is the best format in geospatial data analysis.

Long live SQLite!

Interesting data, but the suggested conclusion is a stretch to say the least.

Sure they exist. But nobody knows they exist because everyone just uses apps and SEO punishes actual good websites.

The whole structure has changed. We are not even in the web 2.0 anymore and regressed to a client-server model where what we see is dictated from central platforms with little interaction between actual users.

This was not a natural evolution of the web but the consequence of low-tech people accessing the web passively via a tiny touchscreen.

Can you name some? I keep wondering about the aversion to Gitlab. I have yet to have negative experiences with it.

One correction: if no more value can be produced organically, this doesn’t mean that society will stale and money is hoarded among a few families.

Rather, the powerful will turn on each other and start waging war eventually, and the expendable bodies used in that is everyone else.

Yeah. It strikes me as the same line of argument that Go used to stop generics.

In the past these people would have been called royals or lords. They are “elite” on name only, really.

It’s what happens when the gap of inequality widens deeper and deeper. You end up with nepotism instead of actual skill and the whole system starts to eat itself.

Once you can’t steal from your own people, you steal from others with war.

In other words: Nothing has changed.

Finance is destroying the real economy in search for "optimization" because business value doesn't neatly fit into an excel sheet cell. All these layoffs have been done because of AI washing right from the start.

Sounds like the typical "Distributed Monolith" antipattern. And we will see more of that because "software is cheap" and everybody will built microservices and find themselves in hell because nobody stopped to think if their domain context is well contained.

Definitely mirrors a lot of my own thinking. Only made it to section 3 so far but it strikes me that we live in a time of extraordinary complexity and the formal structures we live in don’t align with the informal systems that have emerged over the last 10 to 20 years.

But the consequences are not just abstract but manifest themselves psychologically, where most people can tell something is wrong but can’t articulate it. Which creates a desire to break free, even by force.

Sometimes the commenters actually have genuine insights that must reports/articles will never mention. Sadly, I'm quite a cynical person that expects everything to have a spin unless it comes from an authoritative source.

In general, I'd say it's about confirmation bias and having a fluffy statement that confirms preconceived notions is hardly interesting to me. If there is anything of substance that contradicts any narrative or general consensus than I find the signal in the noise highly valuable.

But I can't speak for the general case because I don't use any social media and find rage bate quite cumbersome.

> This is one of the more broadly normal HN-reaction threads to large public news event I've seen in a while. A lot of love for Apple, respect for the decision, and respectfully stated nuance. Surprising and good.

In other words, nothing insightful or worth talking about. I don't want to read news for feelgood vibes.

True, it's an achievement either way. But if an "out of the box LLM" can solve difficult math problems it is an achievement by the LLM vendor. Otherwise it is an achievement by the people doing the vertical integration.

In the context of evolving LLM this is the crucial distinction.

But are we talking pure LLMs, or existing AI solvers augmented with LLMs? Because while the latter is impressive, it doesn't state much outside of this specific domain.

If anything, I see greater verticality of specialized software that is using LLMs at their core, but with much aid and technology around it to really make the most out of it.

This is another way of telling us you haven't seen the movie without telling us you haven't seen the movie.

And what's the certainty of this fix no introducing another bug?

Then you realize tests are failing but now you are not sure if they actually test against implementation or if they were genuinely good tests.

It's a slippery slope that adds more and more cruft over time and LLMs are susceptible to missing important details.

That works until you have to fix a bug

What C# version does Unity currently support? 2024 I chose Godot over Unity due to its better C# support and I can’t say that I came to regret my decision.

Care to elaborate? I think Java is showing remarkable vision and cohesion in their roadmap. Their released features are forward compatible and integrate nicely into existing syntax.

I work much with C# these days and wish C# had as cohesive a syntax story. It often feels like "island of special syntax that makes you fall of a cliff".

And this is the best-case scenario. Because once updates become opt-out it simply becomes an attack vector of another type.

If the updated code is not open source, you are trusting blindly that not some kind of different remote code execution just happened without you knowing it.

As a non-mathematician I always wondered about one thing. Because the way I interpret the Incompleteness Theory is that "you cannot have a universal system of infinite expressiveness, because you will need a more expressive one to prove it".

In other words, you can't have a top-down universal system. But you very well can have well described ones perfectly describe observable behaviour without defects.

Or is this too reductive?

You are assuming they all act as wise and with the foresight of Jobs.

Jobs was a products guy that had an intricate understanding on the relation of people and technology. The others are just finance bro's dressed up in tech clothes.