dkarras

Does everyone not have ringing in their ears when they really pay attention? Or like when they are trying to go to sleep? I always thought everyone had it because I had it since childhood. Still have to this day, same intensity. During the day it does not bother me, nor do I notice it. But if I pay attention, it feels pretty loud.

funding model of OSS work is obviously a problem, but these problems are deeper than that. even a very well compensated OSS developer can get a knock on the door from a government agency (or anyone with a "$5 wrench")[1] and they might feel "compelled" to give up their maintainer creds.

[1]: https://xkcd.com/538/

It is probably because there is a difference between getting mugged and being scammed. With falling victim to SBF's scheme, you probably believe you are partly to blame and you had to face that fact yourself, did some work on it mentally at the very least in the background. Him getting punished does not make a difference, you probably punished yourself and that is what mattered. With a violent mugging encounter, you are blameless, so you need to see the other party get punished to process and to feel that the world will get slightly better / safer with the delivery of the punishment.

>I doubt a virus can damage blood vessels in the brain.

An autoimmune response of the body is capable of damaging everything in the body. A pathogen is able to trigger any immune response in the body depending on what it is.

I don't know how your reasoning works but I can't follow it.

OP is talking about future predictions though, not "priced in" stuff. If you are able to predict (predict being the key term here, you are predicting... the future) the exchange rate, you can make a lot of money, yes.

>People take vit D megadoses for autoimmunity, with significant success,

You mean for compensating for the low vit D levels due to constant inflammation seen in autoimmunity? or to decrease autoimmunity? I have autoimmune diseases and my vit D goes down to about 7 ng/mL without supplementation, so I'm curious.

if this had a repo in github, I'd PR "SSL" to the skill tree.

Compile to js languages tend to include a huge runtime which is a non-starter. The ones that don't, don't generally play well with existing js libraries anyways. I don't think WebAssembly will be the "scripting" solution for the web, is it aiming to be that? I don't think so. It is very performant and that is its thing but you don't tend to write bare wasm, and it is not a scripting solution for the web to interact with the dom.

I'm talking about the language for building and adding interactivity to the webpages.

I think google tried to make Dart that language but it did not gain traction for whatever reason (I don't know the language) - maybe it coming from a single vendor had something to do with it.

What I was curious is that is this something that is even being discussed by the powers that be?

I'll take javascript with macros as a compromise. We could at least build DSLs with it.

is there any hope for all browser vendors to come together and add a new saner language to the browser to veeery slowly phase out javascript? like is this even in the horizon for the next couple decades?

Yeah, he also shows signs of being mentally unstable. Amplifies conspiracy theories. Is a Russia sympathizer, might even be compromised? Would be foolish to trust him with any sort of classified info.

what are some other solutions that can browse the web for me and do what I ask. The requirement is that it should take natural language instructions as input.

Windows should always provide enough additional value that makes up for what they are asking as money - compared to the free option. That is the point. If you had no other viable options, then they could do whatever they like. Now they have a baseline to compete with and it is very hard to compete with free.

But is it even legally required for them to provide a stable 3rd party software support? That would be ridiculous. So if they put in the effort to provide such a base and open it to public, why can't they choose to be compensated for that work?

My problem can be summarized as (assume the company in question is not a monopoly):

* Is it illegal to sell a device with a microprocessor in it that has no support for 3rd party programmability? -> no, most digital devices are like this in fact.

* Is it illegal to sell a computing device and develop software in house for it? Maybe charge for some of it? Still with no 3rd party support? -> no it is not illegal.

* Is it illegal then, to contract other developers / companies to write that "in house" software for the device you are making? -> no that is not illegal

* Is it illegal to make agreements with other companies to buy software / programming services from them to include in your device? -> no that is not illegal

* Is it illegal to make agreements with other companies so that they can sell licenses to "unlock" their software in your device and get a cut from their sales? -> no it is not illegal

* Is it illegal to sell dev kits to the the above? So the device in question is still not a device you can develop on - but you can create another device where 3rd parties can develop on, and you can sell it to them. You can also pick and choose which companies you will work with. None of this is illegal.

* Is it illegal to automate all of the above? Provide low barrier to entry, no bureaucracy, if you want to develop for the device just do, pay us $100 a year, and give us a cut and you are golden! No need to get into direct contact with us, wait months to get our manual approval - we streamline everything and even the little guy can participate? -> HN thinks that this suddenly must be illegal. If they are providing all this service, they should be legally forced to do all for free.

I just don't get the logic.

the point is, MS and others are free to choose how they will offer their services. They can say "hey I'll provide this for free, and I will make you pay for this other thing". As long as they are not a monopoly in computing, they should be free to do whatever they want, no? If they go bonkers with what they ask vs the value they provide, competition will wipe them out - easy peasy.

Apple could have said at the beginning "hey this is iPhone, there are no external apps for it though" - which was actually the case! iPhone did not have 3rd party apps at launch.

Then Apple could have said "good news everyone, you can now develop for the iPhone. Dev kits start at $10000 per unit, apply to partner with us, call us at this number" and that would be the end of it. Lots of gadgets still work like that and nobody bats an eye.

Apple decreased the barrier to entry and provided it as a service, charged for it but created good value in return, and it worked! But now that governments signal that they will punish such success, the next Apple will likely not go the way of low barrier of entry - this will hurt the regular folk, people with not so deep pockets.

What worked well for the past 50 years was freedom. None of those operating systems were forced to provide dev kits at no additional cost. They did it to compete. If Apple's additional costs' value proposition was not there, they would not be successful, they would not be able to attract good developers creating good software. Apple is not a monopoly either, there is competition. So forcing them to provide a service at no additional cost is just theft. And corporations can circumvent the hit they will get from being forced in innumerable ways in a capitalist system, all at the expense of the consumer.

The point is, nobody is disallowed from competing with Apple and its ecosystem on its merits. If Apple didn't provide enough value in return to what they ask, they would fail. Signaling that you will punish success with force means that the next Apple will be a lot more cautious about how they do things. Jacked up prices (as long as value proposition is there, people will pay, they will just pay more), requiring dev kits (can you force a company to change their hardware design so that it can be developed on? where is the limit?) / expensive partnership agreements / increasing the barrier to entry... Unless companies are "state owned" they have infinite ways to keep their profits at the expense of consumers. Apple's existing deal was a good deal - it was working, competition was (and is still) there. Now they will have to do the things that will just inconvenience users as a side effect, which is what they don't want to do, but they will be forced to do regardless.

So they should be forced to develop the SDK and the dev tools for free and provide that support for free? I mean it would be very nice of them to do so, but legally forcing them to do it? I don't know about that. It is a shortsighted "solution".

This was kinda known I think. I remember also reading about blood sugar levels and risk taking behavior. If you are interviewing / auditioning just before people's lunch time, tough luck. They are decision fatigued, hungry, low blood sugar so their risk taking threshold is significantly higher than how it was when they started, so if they thought there were promising candidates from when they were fresh, well rested and not hungry, it is unlikely that you will surpass them even if you are objectively better.

If you are their first after the lunch however, that would again be a very good spot.

This is cool, and "Adobe Illustrator for animation" is perhaps Adobe After Effects.

smells like snake oil. will probably end up becoming a cryptocurrency scam? or some other grift? time will tell.

>Extropic is also building semiconductor devices that operate at room temperature to extend our reach to a larger market.

funny stuff

Also in Turkish. "Canım ciğerim" (my beloved, my liver) is a term of friendly affection. Also when we want to say something like "I know what kind of person you are and what you are up to!" we say "ciğerini bilirim" which literally means "I know your liver" / "I know how your liver is like". One more: "ciğersiz" (liverless) is an insult for a person who wrongs you, schemes behind you, does not help you when you are in need, ungrateful etc.

I think nobody cares yet (or will ever), though it is obviously infringement. If I buy someone's library in a garage sale, I do not automatically own the copyright to the books in it obviously.

>But saying "this is fair use" is no more incorrect than saying "this is red"

No, they are different. "fair use" is a legal term. It is not like saying "I use it like this, I think it is fair!", the term "fair use" literally is a legal term that means a particular thing in the court of law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

how is having low blood sugar a sign of pre-diabetes? I get frequent bouts of hypoglycemia.

I mean his standing is based on what he is capable of, not what he does given the circumstance. We know he would side with Trump if it benefits him. I don't need to see the scenario play out for me to judge him for it.

one was already provided in my comment. ask it to create something by prompting the idea that only exists in your imagination, set up the constraints with natural language, and guide it to explore the dynamics of it with the context and constraints you just provided. you can see before your very eyes that it can interact with a context and set of constraints you just pulled out of thin air, something that exists nowhere but its context window.

I mean even being able to find the salient points and summarize an article that was written today (not in the training set) is intelligence, but some would move goal posts thinking it is something so simple, and from your tone I assumed you'd claim it as such. so I provided a hopefully more foolproof version of testing emergent intelligence that extends beyond training data.

kinda easy to disprove, just think about it for a sec.

need to show this to people claiming "it's just statistical inference, these models can't demonstrate any '''understanding'''" as if understanding is proven to be something else. these people assume every single bit of intelligence these models show is somehow in their training set which is patently false and very easy to test that it is false.

first week ChatGPT was public more than a year ago, I tried the early model to make it play along with me inventing a new programming language with novel attributes in syntax. after some back and forth, it could translate my javascript samples to the new programming language paying attention to the new language's semantics, and could even simulate running simple pieces of code. Sure, it had some token errors here and there but it was working. It was understanding what I was telling it, and responding in kind.

Over the months since, things only got better. So I'm not surprised with the results of this post, but still astonished the same.

yes, but not really. if you reached Shen and would likely use it, you probably clicked on that website on purpose. the idea behind it is not something you can show with a fizzbuzz anyways as it is not your good old regular C skin.

this is not one of "those" languages that is begging for your use / mainstream adoption.

- wait you knew what would happen and still allowed it to happen?