diego

Of course. What does that have to do with my comment? Spotify wants to carry Joe Rogan, and they also want to carry Neil Young. Neil Young is the one who wants Spotify to choose.

Those of us who live in the US enjoy free speech, which clearly allows types of speech that are considered misinformation. In order for a platform to censor speech that is otherwise legal, they must either do it out of principle (they simply don't like a certain kind of speech) or as a calculated business decision because it's what their customers want.

It turns out a significant number of people who support free speech also want their favorite platforms to not allow speech they don't like. The argument is "this is not free speech, it's misinformation and it's damaging." If there were valid scientific arguments proving that what we call misinformation is actually damaging, that would be a reasonable position. However, so far I have not seen anything that convinced me.

All I've heard are "just so" arguments akin to "TV/videogames cause violence." What if fake news do not change people's minds as much as it may appear? We tend to listen to viewpoints (fake or not) that confirm our beliefs. All the information confirming our beliefs is out there, cannot be removed from the internet, and we will gravitate towards it. If that is true, then we are paying a high price (asking platforms to police speech beyond the law) for little or no benefit.

Edit: downvoter, I would appreciate if it you could explain how you disagree with my comment.

I generally read audiobooks at 1.5x because 1.0 seems terribly slow to me. This more or less matches my reading pace for printed books, so 16 hours seems right.

I cannot believe nobody has mentioned 5D optical data storage. Much denser, designed to last 10 centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5D_optical_data_storage

I didn't see an article. I saw a tweet with statistics. I had to look for the article, it's further down past a few hidden tweets. I appreciate your written explanation, I'm not a fan of the "downvote as disagreement" mechanism.

Better for whom? The upfront investment is much higher. If the market buys energy from you, they give you money. You can turn bitcoin into money instantly without having to store energy. You don't care about the value of bitcoin fluctuating, you care about the instant profitability of mining vs storing the energy.

As I understand it, the gist of web3 is to do away with the need for having centralized organizations who control a particular resource. For example domain names, identities, speech. In the beginning, the web was supposed to be an egalitarian and democratic space. Of course corporations and governments seized as much control as they could. Today we have companies that dictate arbitrary rules. For example, there is nothing you can do to grow your Twitter account. If Youtube decides they don't like you anymore, your audience is gone. Your domain name is not really yours, etc.

Supposedly web 3.0 would fix this problem by making sure decision power is decentralized. Will it deliver? I personally doubt it, because it's easy to create an anonymous oligarchy under an apparent layer of decentralization. Still, I'm sure some applications will succeed.

Without even getting into whether the guilty deserve it or not, you are assuming justice is infallible. What is your best guess for the rate of false positives on death row?

This is normal. You will get used to it, and you will likely bounce to your personality before the windfall. You have solved one problem in life that most people never solve, and that puts you in a very small group. However, the rest of the problems are still there. The need to work for money can no longer distract you from them. You still need human connection and purpose. You still will age, have to worry about your health, etc.

There are many jobs you will not want to take because you know that you don't need to, and that makes it hard to put up with all the bullshit of a typical job. Ultimately you may want to focus on creative pursuits, perhaps investments, maybe start a business or a nonprofit to do something you find fulfilling.

Right now I'd say be patient, get used to your new life, focus on investing the money wisely. I'd say buy a place to live and invest the rest in a conservative portfolio designed to keep up with inflation. Roboinvesting is the easiest, or you could do it yourself via traditional brokers: a mix of bond and stock index ETFs, perhaps a small amount of crypto (I'd say no more than 10%) if you still believe in it.

This question is backwards. We used to write differently with typewriters and notebooks. This is like asking if no longer using a car and instead walking would change the way we move around. The answer is "of course, why would you even ask. Just remember how it used to be."

The same can be said for commuting, and for wearing presentable clothes to go to work. Nothing new under the sun. The difference is that smartphones actually have other uses besides work.

If you are a CEO, you have to rehearse the delivery for something like this. Even more now that these videos are certain to become public. To me, this video says that he's a mediocre leader. If I were on the board I would seek to replace him.

Brain chemistry is weird, perhaps some combination of therapy and antidepressants could help. It sounds like you can afford it, so why not give it a shot.

The actual title says "How Smart Homes Alter Human Behavior." The submission title makes it sounds like it's news that they do.

From the point of view of YC, they want to you think different even if it gets you killed. 100 startups think different, 99 get killed, the other one makes up for the rest.

Most founders would prefer better than 1% odds of course.

I meant as in "beating Lucene" without trying to use Lucene properly. It's like trying to use a spoon to cut a steak and then saying that you can beat silverware with your teeth.

Lucene is extremely flexible. You have to configure it to do what you want if you don't like the defaults (which OP didn't do).

I'm not sure if this is a troll. It seems the author did not spend much time learning Lucene, it already does everything he needs and better. Of course Lucene does tf-idf! If you are not getting the results you want, you must not be indexing right or must have something misconfigured. Lucene lets you tweak relevance, speed, index space efficiency, etc in a million ways.

You don't seem to understand what "charging rate" means. There is nothing magical about subdividing lithium cells. No matter the size of the cell, you can't insert energy at a higher rate per unit of volume.

That is not correct. In order to fully charge a cell in 5 minutes, you need to charge that cell at 12C. That is just not possible with lithium batteries. 5C is pushing it. There is nothing to optimize, you would have to change the battery chemistry.

Everything else you mentioned is irrelevant, we are talking about all cells being charged at the same time which is really the only way that makes sense. There is no point in waiting to charge cells.

No, they could not. The cable is not the limiting factor AT ALL. The limiting factor is the speed at which you can insert energy into a battery. Everyone who has ever charged drone batteries knows this. Charge too fast, the batteries catch fire. 5C is doable, but 5 minutes would be 12C.

They are different problems. You can stop filling the tub, but the water in the tub isn't going to evaporate in time. You still have to drain it. It's not either/or.

This is a good story, but really the airframes are the cheapest part of fixed wing drones. You can build them out of dollar store foam if you'd like, people have been doing it for years [1]. The expensive part are the electronics, in particular if you'd like the drone to do something useful. The motor, servos, speed controllers, flight controller, gps, receiver, antennas, payload can be 99% of the cost.

[1[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAd5Zbb-p6I

FYI, La Parca is the grim reaper in Spanish. Not saying you should change the name, just be aware that for some people "death" is the most obvious connotation of the name.

This is the one I'm referring to. https://www.amazon.com/Art-Fugue-Bach/dp/B00000E2U0

Nothing to see here. These performances are from 1984, which means that the recording companies that own their copyright have the right to block them in the US and other countries.

This depends on the definition of "automate" and "creative." GPT-3 proves that you can automate creative writing. In principle it's possible to have a system that interacts with users and develops software based on feedback. You cannot take user feedback out of the loop, sure. Maybe one day the system will also be able to simulate the user's reactions to iterative prototypes, to the point of coming up with something directly useful. Of course the system can't predict the future, which is why iterations will continue as time passes and the world changes.

This is misguided. Let's say this campaign succeeds. Maybe 10% of the cups will be recycled, leaving still a ton of waste. It would be much more effective to campaign against single-use cups. I grew up in a time in which you had to bring an empty bottle glass bottle to a shop, and they would take it and give you a full one, which you'd bring back empty next time. If you didn't have one, you'd leave a deposit (effectively buying your first bottle). There is nothing wrong with that system.

You forgot to bring your cup to Starbucks? Fine, buy one. Don't want to keep it? Bring it back when you're done and they credit you the deposit.

The law where? That is part of the problem. Every piece of content would need to have hundreds of flags, one for each jurisdiction in which the content could be viewed. That may not be enough for some countries given how easy it is to fake your origin address. It's solvable but not an easy problem.

It's broken from the point of view of the article writers. It's working just fine from the point of view of the companies operating it.