O__________O

>> mostly Asian countries consume more seafood than the next 50.

This is false. Per capita, aside from Africa and South America, who both eat roughly half the fish per person as the rest, majority of world per person eats same amount of fish. Sure, Asian has more people, but do you really think telling the majority of people they need to eat less fish while everyone else is not told that is going to go over well?

Source:

- https://goodseedventures.com/worldwide-food-consumption-per-...

>> you need to boil the frog slowly

Possible I am mistaken, but 70% of world’s wildlife has disappeared past 50 years. Exactly how much time do you think is left?

>> they will kill you, doesn’t matter how right you are

Agree.

Corporations and ultra wealthy clearly have an over sized impact and influence on the world, but — when it comes to a topic like this, it’s 8 billion people saying, yummie, yummie, F the world; or the people not saying “yummie, yummie” refusing to enforce not impacting wildlife on those who clearly don’t care.

War is irrelevant. No country is going to agree to cease impacting, harvesting, etc wildlife. It’s to hard to monitor, enforce, predict, etc wildlife harvesting.

I am not saying humanity needs to protect wildlife because it is the “nice thing” to do, saying it because I sincerely believe Earth and humanity need’s wildlife to have a habitable planet; anyone is welcome to feel free to explain how this is wrong.

Sorry, but unless there’s an actual link to the agreement, list of countries bound to it, and significant meaningful timely means of enforcement— this is meaningless.

As far as I’m concerned, all harvesting or harming of wildlife sea or otherwise needs to stop. If a country or individual refuses to agree, should either be a life sentence or act of war. People are unable to handle any rule based systems other than black and white, zero impact.

China, US, Japan, etc - regardless of what they say, will never stop until sea, land, and air no longer has wildlife.

“Disposable emails are not allowed.”

FIY they also banned anyone that used a throw away email prior to them adding this filter later. No warning, no request after logging in. Just ban. Given I rapidly finished game, I would have had to pay to play more anyway, impressive!

Appears founder may only have 5% of Zoho now:

>> While Vembu has been running Zoho for nearly a quarter century, his sister Radha and brother Sekar own the bulk of the company, according to Indian filings. A product manager at Zoho, Radha has a 47.8% stake in the company that’s currently worth an estimated $2.2 billion. Sekar, founder of Vembu Technologies in Chennai, owns 35.2% worth $1.6 billion. Vembu owns 5%, worth $225 million. The family, now worth at least $4 billion, was ranked No. 48 on Forbes’ 2022 list of India’s 100 Richest under Sridhar’s name due to his prominence as founder and CEO.

Source:

- https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2023/03/13/zoho-srin...

Agree, appears to be accurate; only reference to outside funding was an anonymous entry date April 1st, 2000 — which is April fools day:

- https://www.cbinsights.com/company/zoho/financials

Here’s an article that appears to back the claim:

- https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/10/how-zoho-became-1b-company...

Nothing you’ve described sounds like a valid reason to move “a couple of spreadsheets” to a database system which might require: budget planning, database administrator, system design, server, colocation, query optimization, report system, monitoring, user interface, backup/recovery plan, authentication system, change management logs, user training, business process analysis, etc.

Sure the fish find it relaxing too. /s

I’ll bite.

So, it’s easy to get caught up in the moment, but not aware of any meaningful measure of the state of world. Everything is to me ultimately relative. For example, pretty easy to image world being way better or worse, or for that matter, thing’s specific to yourself.

Seen author post before, so that added to this post to me adds up to saying — reminder: make meaningful positive connections in the present.

I do think specific to author they’ve invested a lot of time building of search service and now future of search for first time in long, long time is uncertain. I personally find that exciting, but easily see how it might be overwhelming too.

EDIT: “why touch grass when you can…”

https://youtube.com/shorts/iOCR73U8t6E

Thanks, honestly not sure if I’ve heard of it before, but here’s another more recent article with additional information:

- https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/highly-classif...

Which includes an official release on it:

- https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/wp-content/upl...

* NRO maybe secretive, but they are well known for their special project patches.

EDIT-001: Here’s more recent “approved for release (with redacted material) on the project; warning link is NRO site, but legally viewable FOIA doc, per URL and notices on doc:

- https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll...

EDIT-002: Appears to be similar to “Total Information Awareness” project:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness

Thanks, familiar with both the organizations, but possible others are not. If I had to make a guess if there was someone that would know, it would be Google’s former CEO:

- https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/commissioner-bio/

They published a “final report” back in 2021:

- https://www.nscai.gov/2021-final-report/

Runner up would be Elon, given in my opinion, literally everything he does potentially has a national security spin.

Likely need a better explanation that self funding is possible so it must exist already. Building self funding algorithms might be artificial life, maybe, but without significant explanation what you mean by AGI and how its even remotely feasible boils down to thin air; to me at least.

Why? For explanation, see link below; appears this was announced back in 2020, title should be updated:

- https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=85267

Understand, as do others, for example here’s relevant pub on the topic:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35204557

DARPA’s mission is simply “to prevent and create strategic surprise” — and AGIs for sure meets that measure.

Plenty of “secret” projects that are not actually secret for whatever reason and require no one breaching US national security regulations. Beyond that, without people even needing to say specifically what they working on, how it works, etc — you can tell just by the way for example Demis Hassabis and Ilya Sutskever both talk that they’re both hyper focused on finding one of the many paths to AGIs.

Also, agree that if such a monitoring system did exist back then was likely combination network velocity and honey pots - and if need, tracing traffic to identify and breach the originating system to understand the source of the behavior.

* Per unique FDIC institution, of which there 3000-5000 of them, many of which offer financial services that break deposit down into FDIC insured amounts via institutions the are legally separated per FDIC’s definition, but treated as a single account for transactions.

See post related post that covers this, additional options, and HN user comments here:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35109420

Related prior discussion on topic on HN:

How to Insure Your Money When You’re Banking over $250K (2022)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35109420

Appears they raised over million back in 2012:

https://google.com/search?q=zapier+funding+million

Anyone have a link/list of notable billion plus market cap companies that reached this valuation without using equity exchanges?

Please review HN’s submission guidelines, specifically: “Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.”

Source:

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

I agree OpenAI has not made it easy to differentiate between users attempting to do security research, which they have repeatedly stated they’re requesting — and attempts to exploit known existing vulnerabilities to repeatedly achieve some activity that clearly violates their terms of service.

Simply put, if you’re reusing known vulnerabilities to break the terms of service, if they ban you, you should not be surprised. If you’re doing free research for them, reporting your novel vulnerability findings to them, not using vulnerabilities you independently found to achieve activities that are clear violations of their terms of service, and not sharing them until they’re patched, question I would ask is why?

Founder awareness of what even happened in my experience is highly biased. Likely even worse than reliability of eyewitness testimony, since they were actively participating in the situation.

Specifically DIF:

https://www.difxs.com/

Though DIF has only $500 million in assets and only services member banks in US state of Massachusetts.

What specifically in your opinion are you supposed to pay attention to?

Agree, if there was a proven and repeatable method of doing (or not doing) anything that produced significant value, it would rapidly be adopted (or blocked) — and as result, offer diminishing (if not negative) returns.

Quick Google appears to show they have 3 million subscribers, which makes the average cost per customer to be $450. Given its a virtual network, beyond brand value Ryan provides, who owns 25% of the company and will remain the brand’s spokesperson — what other assets are being transferred beyond a brand and portfolio of subscribers?

If long term, it’s basically a subscriber list, seems like value of a virtual US telecommunications subscriber is roughly $45 a year — assuming sell is a 10x multiple. How would someone estimate this value beyond this specific sell? Even more abstract, is there a source for estimating value of a customer for a given market?

Stating obvious, this is only true until debts exceed a leverage US government has to inject currency it magically creates or utilize other financial tools it has available. At the point they are unable to do so, that’s no longer the case, system reaches a critical point for which recovery will take real assets at fair market value on the global market.

Ironically, US’s down fall may be its own failure to believe itself.

Possible I am missing something, but your response appears to assume the securities will recover their loses prior to being sold and/or that these unrealized losses do become actual losses, should banks need to sell securities to meet liquidity needs.

Without additional context, seems like wishful thinking to believe such losses will ever be recovered. In fact, while I might be wrong, those unrealized losses assume current market conditions; meaning they do not represent the actual total assets at potentially at risk; might be wrong about this.

Am I missing something?