Handprint4469

> feels like I'm being flash-banged by a Cocomelon episode.

This is by design, who do you think the target market for this Macbook is?

> Are paywalls ok? [0]

>> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.

>> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Are%20payw...

> Google AI (owned by Meta) favoring YouTube (also owned by Meta) should be unsurprising.

...what?

that depends. how much money do your kids have?

> as search with ads is their flagship product.

no, ads are their flagship product. Anything else is just a medium for said ads, and therefore fair game for enshittification.

If you have uv installed, you can test it without installing by running:

  uvx ty check

> But there is a feedback loop: If you change the incentive structures, people’s behaviors will certainly change, but subsequently so, too, will those incentive structures.

This is a good point, and somewhat subtle too. Something that worries me is the acceleration of the feedback loop. The Internet, social media, smartphones, and now generative AI are all things that changed how information is generated, consumed and distributed, and changing that affects the incentive structures and behaviors of the people interacting with that information.

But information is spread increasingly faster, in higher amounts and with higher noise, and so the incentives landscape keeps shifting continuously to keep up, without giving people time to adapt and develop immunity against the viral/parasitic memes that each landscape births.

And so the (meta)game keeps changing under our feet, increasingly accelerating towards chaos or, more worryingly, meta-stable ideologies that can survive the continuous bombardment of an adversarial memetic environment. I say worryingly, because most of those ideologies have to be, by definition, totalizing and highly hostile to anything outside of them.

So yeah, interesting times.

> we were required to engage in 'reflexive practice', meaning at the end of the school day, we were expected to sit down and think about - reflect - on what had happened that day.

That is _reflective_ practice (which involves reflection). Reflexive otoh comes from 'reflex', which does suggest unthinking automaticity.

Everyone with an imagination is dead inside. Dead. Inside. But it's not so bad, they don't want to bite you, and there are a few living still out there; I reckon a couple of thousand in London. We recognise each-other and give a nod or a raise of the eyebrow, then back into the crowds of the undead stumbling along daydreaming about celebrity's dinners or whatever the fuck it is they find so compelling ...

It will be Grok 3, mark my words

I disagree. The main point of this line is not about what to do _after_ a mistake (assign blame, punish, etc), but rather about setting up the correct incentives _before_ anything happens so that a mistake is less likely.

When you're accountable you suddenly have skin in the game, so you'll be more careful about whatever you're doing.

Reddit comments seem reasonable until they talk about something you're an expert on. Then you realize the "Reddit consensus" is worthless: uninformed at best, actively misleading at worst.

A corollary to this: people who don't have expertise in any field might never realize this, and will believe whatever Reddit (or HN, Twitter, etc) tells them that matches their previous-held beliefs.

I recommend people become technically proficient at at least one thing in their lives. It gives you an anchor to reality (you can easily recognize bullshit), and it will cure you of the illusion that most people know what they're talking about.

yeah, for someone who wrote a book called "The Coding Career Handbook"[0], not being able to actually read the instructions, getting mad about it, and then posting a rant called "Home Assistant Voice Preview is an unusable mess"[1] is not a good look.

[0]: https://learninpublic.org/

[1]: https://github.com/swyxio/swyxdotio/issues/525

> These are not ads, rather something that is generated natively by the platform, not leading anywhere else but the platform that the user is already on

So if Instagram shows you ads about Meta AI, it doesn't count as ads because both are owned by Meta?

I might be missing some context, but this seems a bit unhinged? What do you mean?

> Unfortunately every attorney I've contacted so far is not in a position to help.

What? Why?

> "With OnlyFans, athletes are actually providing a product or service, something of value for the money they're receiving," he explained, emphasizing the need to reframe thinking.

> "It's making athletes entrepreneurs."

Doesn't matter. In fact, it makes it even funnier: all these investors spending billions of dollars on OpenAI just end up subsidizing the competing models.

What was different about it compared to the neovim conf?

> I'm going to have to talk about my goals with a trainer next week, I don't think I'm going to come completely clean that a fox sent me.

Oh man this sentence killed me, literally lol'ed.

Californa seems to be speedrunning the transition into a low-trust society.

is Nix worth it nowadays? my past experience has been full of these little inconveniences that made me give up on it, but I'm wondering if things have improved in the last 1-2 years.

> "you guys" is sexist

is it though?

Yes, exactly. See [0] for a concrete example of an abstraction that can't be grokked without grinding concrete examples, and how people who have already grokked it forget this fact.

[0]: https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuiti...

Yup, see Theory of Constraints[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints

wrong thread? It seems pretty coherent to me.

> I’m not disagreeing, I’m saying the reasoning doesn’t hold.

Fair enough

> But the argument that such measures are problematic because they sidestep an individual consent that we don’t bother getting in other analogous situations makes it moot.

I guess this is where we don't agree. If I'm understanding correctly, your point is that existing contaminants in the food and air are analogous situations to these mosquito vaccines, and since we already don't give consent for the former, we shouldn't bother with the latter. I disagree: the fact that we have no control over these contaminants entering our body is not a reason to give carte blanche to the government to go even further.

> By precedent, it does.

Nope, it doesn't. The fact that I have those things in my blood does not mean I consented to them.

But I'm surprised you'd give up your bodily integrity so easily. Do you trust the government that much? Or are you just resigned to it?

Sure, being part of a democracy means I'm giving implicit consent for the government to do things like raise taxes. It does not mean I'm consenting to the government injecting whatever they want into my bloodstream.

> It seems reasonable for a government to consent on behalf of its governed for something like public health.

Does it? How can you guarantee that your government's interpretation of "public health" matches yours?