causalscience

I like CryptPad.fr. End-to-end encrypted google docs.

> Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

Whaaaa? No way /s

Like, do you people not understand the business model?

I didn't say you've been brainwashed, I'm saying you're intentionally propagandizing.

Russian propaganda folks.

No, those are not the only alternatives. I keep my password manager in my computer.

Make sure you click this link https://sqlite.org/src/timeline

So the sqlite developers use their on versioning system which uses sqlite for storage. Funny.

Wait, I've watched this episode before. The US owed France large amount of gold (the legal mechanism for this was called "the dollar"). France asked to redeem their dollars for gold, and the US said "nah, we're keeping it, enjoy your dollars".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock#American_policy_re...

I have good news and bad news.

The bad news is you have this gene that increases the probability that you'll have Alzheimers in the future.

The good news is you have cancer now, so you're safe.

That's why I don't do either of those.

I can tell you. Forgejo is a git server (i.e. you can push to a remove that lives in a different machine) plus a web GUI that allows to list repos, list commits within a repo, navigate commits and files within a commit.

The license is Free and Copyleft.

It's not, because the world we live in isn't binary. It's not true that "it's encrypted therefore nothing can go wrong". Putting your password manager online increases the risk of an accident.

And just because millions of people think this is a good idea, doesn't make it a good idea. Millions of people also reuse their passwords and that doesn't make it a good idea either.

Oh yeah, having your passwords online is a great idea /s

I only use Proton for the spam or temporary low value (and free) email accounts. Proton also tries to do everything, which I don't like. If I did I'd use Google.

The thing I pay for is Tuta. The cheapest tier is way more generous than Proton and the product is simpler.

> Indian students

Is this cultural? I ran a small business some years ago (later failed) and was paying for contract work to various people. At the I perceived the pattern that Indian contractors would never ever ask for clarifications, would never say they didn't know something, would never say they didn't understand something, etc. Instead they just ran with whatever they happened to have in their mind, until I called them out. And if they did something poorly and I didn't call them out they'd never do back as far as I can tell and wonder "did I get it right? Could I have done better?". I don't get this attitude - at my day job I sometimes "run with it" but I periodically check with my manager to make sure "hey this is what you wanted right?". There's little downside to this.

Your comment reminded me of my experience, in the sense that they're both a sort of "fake it till you make it".

> The design of the EU is based on a foundation where other than the EU institutions themselves the founding legal entity must sit within a member state.

You don't get it.

You're arguing it's not possible on the basis of the law. I'm saying the people you make the law are saying they'll make it happen. Get it?

Personally, I try to not think of the world in binary terms. I don't find "unification bad" useful.

If the EU is saying "we'll make it work", replying "can't work because that's how the EU is designed" doesn't seem like an intelligent response.

I suspect HN just got bored with reporting on stupid startups.

Lobbies whose only purpose is to sustain themselves even at the cost of maintaining friction should be made illegal.

In that case it sounds like "unification was bad" is an unfair characterization. Unification was bad by proxy, due to the bad decisions of Germany. If Germany had made better decisions, unification would've been good as Sweden would've had lower prices on a larger market.

Wanna tell us more? Why has unifying the energy market been catastrophic for Sweden?

What you're describing is selection bias: Obviously I'm going to choose an engineer that agrees with me, and I'm not going to bring one that doesn't agree with me. But I'm not allowed to pay him to defend a side.

With lawyers, paying to defend a side is the whole point.

> An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion".

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

It's not acceptable. Nobody turns on invisible thinking "my friends can still see me".

No no those are lawyers for poor people like you and me.

When we talk about lawyers for companies and billionaires it's a completely different game.

Remember last time a lawyer said they wouldn't represent facebook because they didn't necessarily believe their innocence? Right, never happened. Because on that league, the game is to twist the meaning of words so much that the judge starts to doubt he understands the law himself.

Lawyers are intellectual prostitutes. Think about it. They will defend whatever position you pay them to defend.

Can you imagine if you ask an engineer "what's your opinion on the maximum load this bridge can take?" he answered "for a fee, I will claim that my opinion is what you tell me". In any other profession this would be corruption, but when it comes to lawyers that's their job. Intellectual prostitutes.

All you're saying is "it went up more". Still irrelevant impact in the world.

Zambia doesn't actually matter though.

> why should I know anything

The obvious answer is "Because it's interesting."

But suppose you think strictly in utilitarian terms: what effort should I invest for what $$$ return. I have two things to say to you:

First: what a meaningless life you're living.

Second: you realize that if you don't learn anything because you have LLMs, and I learn everything because it's interesting, when you and I are competing, I'll have LLMs as well...? We'll be using the same tools, but I'll be able to reason and you won't.

I think the people who struggle with the question "Why should I know anything?" aren't going to learn anything anyway. You need curiosity to learn, or at least to learn a lot and well, and if you have curiosity you're not asking why you should learn anything.