Repulsion9513

What does "picks" mean to you? Strange response.

Do you think they only got one person to do it or something?

If they weren't looking at multiple options then ... why did they still ask SJ?

Oh right because they asked SJ because they hadn't picked yet.

> Self driving is actually coming along better than I thought it would. Version 12 behaves like a human driver.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Anyway that would be cool if it was true but doesn't change what a conman he is. He said he was gonna make it true how long ago? Yeah.

> The real source of your frustration though is that he does not fully subscribe to the neoliberal dogma and lets millions of others to say whatever they like. Totalitarian left can’t handle that, it’s a visceral reaction

That's not even remotely true. Seriously. No part of it.

- It's been obvious to me that he was a conman since he started lying at Tesla, a decade or more ago. 'Fraid to say that alone disproves your unfounded personal attack since he didn't own a social media platform at the time.

- He doesn't allow people to say whatever they like unless he agrees with them.

- He (ok, and perhaps you) is the only totalitarian in this conversation.

But hey good job trying to make this out to be about politics instead of about what a terrible human Musk is, I know that's the only way for you Repugnantcans to cope with the cognitive dissonance.

> You know that this is exactly how SpaceX won big? There were many a competent, credentialed people telling Musk that reusable rockets are a pipe dream, all the way to the first Falcon 9 landing and reflight. Some of them even continued giving such "competent and informed" advice for many months afterwards.

And there were also people saying it could be done. Where were those people for self-driving? (Oh right they were in the Facebook comment section with no relevant knowledge.)

> That's literally what it means, though.

No, it's not at all.

A goal is personal, or perhaps organizational. You need not announce something on Twitter in order to set a goal for yourself or for your company.

> Offloads rendering to the GPU for lower system load

My God, what have we done

> > [Terminal m]ultiplexers add unnecessary overhead, suffer from a complexity cascade, because they actually have to translate escape codes, modifying them in hackish ways to get them to work with their concepts of windows/sessions. […]

So... like how a terminal emulator translates escape codes, modifying them in hackish ways to get them to work with X's/Wayland's/users' concepts of windows/sessions? :)

Obviously that's not an apples to apples comparison but really, while that may make it more complex and slightly buggier I don't see how that makes it bad.

> I find myself typing out “tmux” as the first command I run. Because it’s always going to be there, and it does the one thing I actually need it to no matter what: Let me run multiple shells at once, without SSHing in multiple times

I don't understand why people hate opening up another SSH session. If you're really worried about the 10 seconds it might take, you can easily configure it to take more like 1:

       -M      Places  the  ssh client into “master” mode for connection shar‐
               ing.  Multiple -M options places ssh  into  “master”  mode  but
               with confirmation required using ssh-askpass(1) before each op‐
               eration that changes the multiplexing state (e.g. opening a new
               session).    Refer  to  the  description  of  ControlMaster  in
               ssh_config(5) for details.

The only reason I ever use screen is for persistence, the multi-windows is just a secondary feature.

(Since when is tmux "always going to be there"?)

I don't see where that quote says "they contacted SJ before they hired the actor that did the voice" or anything similar. Perhaps you need to taste it a bit more before you try again.

"Whether or not Altman wanted SJ's voice" and "whether or not they got someone else to do SJ's voice before asking SJ to do it" are two completely independent matters.

It's not aiming high when anyone competent and informed can tell him there's no way, and he pays many competent and informed people to tell him.

He can set all the goals he wants. Setting a goal is not the same as telling people the company that you are dictator of is going to do something.

He's not setting goals, he is marketing, and he does it very well.

As far as how he's a conman https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40462194 although you already know that full well so you'll continue thinking he's some sort of hero.

> You're creating a causal connection without a proof of one. We don't know why Altman referenced "Her", but I feel it's more likely because the product works in a way eerily similar to the movie's AI, not that because it sounds like it.

There's no proof needed. A marketer doesn't market something for no reason.

We are all capable of interpreting his statement and forming an opinion about its intent. Indeed, the entire point of making any statement is for others to form an opinion about it. That doesn't make our opinion invalid - nor does the whining and backpedaling of the person who made the statement.

Your opinion may be different than others, but I doubt that would be the case if you were truly approaching this situation in an unbiased way.

> When the reaction is “I don’t care that an investigation refuted some of the accusations”, it demonstrates someone isn’t openly approaching things in good faith.

When the reaction is "it doesn't matter, it's still not ok to copy someone's voice and then market it as being that person's voice or related to that person's voice" and your reaction is to cast that as being something else, it demonstrates you are not openly approaching things in good faith.

I'm not sure what RMS has to do with Altman. I'm also not sure why you think people just want to hate on Musk when it took a decade of his blatant lies for most people to catch on to the fact that he's a conman (remember, everyone loved him and Tesla for the first 5 or 10 years of lies). But the comparison between Musk and Altman is pretty apt, good job there.

Ah yes, the real deal.

How's that self driving coming along?

How about the Cybertruck being a few years late?

How about the low cost car being cancelled?

How about the you have all the hardware you need - oh wait oopsie you need to pay us thousands more

How about the taking Tesla private tweet?

How about the repeatedly and flagrantly violating government contracts that are basically his company's only revenue because he's too powerful for consequences?

How about...

Definitely the real deal.

That may be true, but you specifically said "on this site" and now you're saying "this is not specific to this site". And no, the vast majority of people "try[ing] to pull them down" to Musk are doing it because he's an egotistical hypocritical whiny jackass.

Where has anyone disputed "that they hired the actor that did the voice months before they contacted SJ"? Links preferred please.

What part of "actor" in "voice actor" did you not understand? You don't hire an actor to play themselves generally. "SJ" was not playing herself in Her.

Except the story isn't false? They wanted her voice, they got her voice*, they did marketing around her voice, but it's not her voice, she didn't want to give them her voice.

Notice how the only asterisk there is "it's technically not her voice, it's just someone who they picked because she sounded just like her"

due to SCOTUS*

"1A" describes rights of people, not businesses or organizations, and doesn't mention anything about money

> Especially when the issue is providing customer support at scale to millions, if not billions of users (many of whom don't actually directly pay anything).

What about those who do pay? Cause I can promise you, you don't get any better support, even if you're paying them tens or hundreds of thousands a year. Maybe if you're paying them millions.

And the context here is NOT customer support, the context is cutting people off from their friends and family because the AI was wrong.

`| less`

Did they? IDK, just differentiating browser from curl is incredibly likely to be "good enough" as an attacker.

I mean, the context I was replying to was:

> terminals don't have even a small fraction of browsers' malicious-link-defense mechanisms (as demonstrated). I always want to see the full url in a terminal.

And yeah you're right if you're just piping stuff to bash, malicious URLs are the least of your worries, but that doesn't change the fact that outputting data (that may contain raw control codes) to your terminal is dangerous with or without linkified-URLs.

Honestly the issue here isn't that they let the zone get stale. The root zone doesn't change that much. So a couple of TLDs had to hold off on making changes, who cares.

The issue here is that they didn't notice until someone with a direct contact at Cogent emailed them to tell them.

A corollary to that issue is the fact that the last news item is the same thing: they failed to get updates and their monitoring failed to tell them. Supposedly their monitoring was fixed then, in 2019. Why should we believe it's any more fixed now?

> sophisticated enough to send different contents to a browser and to curl

Checking the Accept header (or User-Agent or a bunch of other things) is very difficult :)

Is government a corporation?

You never want to see raw, attacker-supplied text in a terminal, actually.

> The statement sounds like it's written by a lawyer to be technically true while implying something that is actually false.

That describes nearly every statement to ever come out of a CEO's mouth. (Or anyone else who's primary job is marketing)

> I guess the more ignorant ones do? I figured it was common knowledge that when something is broken policy-wise at companies, and they're clearly avoiding fixing it, it's rarely the non-management employees that are the problem. Almost always, it's a strategic decision by management to not address the issue (or sometimes they do address it, but poorly).

Yikes. I'd call that ignorant myself.

By supporting the "strategic decision by management" you implicitly approve of it. This is particularly true with well-paid FAANG employees who could absolutely take their expertise elsewhere.

Reminds me of those contracts (that are completely formulaic and you definitely can't negotiate) that say "I agree this rate has been negotiated".

> in which case at least you cost them more than they cost you

Did you really? Monetarily you did of course. How much time does it cost you though? It might cost the company a couple hours.

It has been for a long time. Back when I worked for a (moving truck) rental place they charged like $75 "for processing and billing" the tolls to you.

If no one intended to apply the fee to an electric vehicle, then why was the fee applied to an electric vehicle? Moreover why did it happen numerous times? And why was support not immediately like "oh crap lemme fix that"?