dotancohen

But you're reaching for Kimi, no? A model from an entirely otherwise-redundant company. You're already using Open AI models, so Kimi seems even more of a reach.

I'm asking, not arguing, because I'd like to understand. Is Astra so much more expensive for those tasks, and are they frequent?

Language is also a cultural signifier. English might not be a barrier, but protesting in English certainly communicates that the protesters care not for German culture.

Instead of the eyes of their own politicians? Are their goals to actually effect change in Germany or to disparage Germany in the eyes of the global press?

That's a very selective interpretation of what GP said, in fact I don't see how you even got to that conclusion.

"We" as a species is a far different entity than any single individual who is temporarily or even permanently impaired. And GP didn't even mention such impairment.

Humans had completely mastered fire by about 200,000 years ago - after 800,000 years of experimentation.

Speech is dated to around 60,000 years ago, though some say we started down that path 200,000 years ago: right when we mastered fire.

Why are the protesters in Berlin holding signs in English?

I suggest using Enzo to clean up your submission. Most people here would tell you they don't like AI writing, but a near complete lack of punctuation and capitalization is worse.

In my HN Threads feed, the very next item is another HN user mentioning how they have difficulty paying for parking spaces without a smart phone, from this very page. Search "and sadly accept the cost of our principles" on this page to find it.

But I have no interest in winning internet arguments. You win, the cookie isn't worth it to me.

I independently came to that conclusion after noticing that my comments on some controversial subjects will slowly acquire upvotes, then nose dive 2 or 4 votes very quickly. At first I thought that some mods might have double-value votes (Hi Cowboy Neal!) but then I realized it's sometimes 4 successive downvotes, not only 2.

I personally live in a country with a large religious population that rejects the smartphone, so thankfully I personally have not encountered a situation where needing a smartphone is vital. However we've seen many people right here on HN mention how some specific vital service - often government or banking - does require a smartphone.

When a pattern is repeated many times, it is not a fallacy to recognize that pattern at the begining.

If I see a tiger crotched in the bushes, is it a fallacy to gather my children and head back to the cave?

Pattern recognition is not a fallacy.

How do people without smartphones pay for parking?

People tell me this all the time. Yet I've never had a WhatsApp account and I do just fine.

The only problems I've had were a single barber that accepts reservations over WhatsApp exclusively - so I go to the barber two shops over and don't need a reservation. And some women from dating apps refuse to talk on the phone before talking over WhatsApp. That's fine, there are plenty of fish in that sea.

  > Headphone jack for special music

Actually, this phone does have a headphone jack.

The best ice cream I ever had was at a small shop in Athens that had unsweetened ice cream.

TFA refers to the evolutionarily history of the brain, not the specialised functionality of different parts of the brain.

People with maternal Jewish DNA have two brains.

I very much appreciate the correction, thank you.

I believe that tri-colour house cats are all female. This is a tri-colour male.

  > I can assure you that lawmakers were not thinking about efficient disaster recovery plans or back ups when they made the laws.

That's why the input of actual specialists in a field should be the one drafting the policies. I'm glad that professional lawmakers exist, I personally couldn't draw up a proper par if I had to, but they are not and can not be specialists in every field.

It might be the you of Theseus. You really don't want to know what the future holds.

No.

_You_ are supposed to have three copies of everything - and two of those should be off AWS.

Neoliberal philosophy is stable ground for a lawsuit?

I had the fish.

  > Contrary to the Great Man version of how we mostly talk about history, scientific discoveries, technological breakthroughs and such have historically often occurred multiple times in multiple places often in close proximity time-wise but otherwise completely unrelated to each other.

My favourite example of this is calculus, followed closely by heavier-than-air flight.

We can date archeological finds accurately enough the the word guess is not appropriate. I know that sewn clothes have existed something like 20,000 or 30,000 years. And I think I read recently about woven fabrics dating back maybe 8 thousand years or so. I tend to think in round numbers so go ahead and call that a guess, but archeologists have this stuff dated pretty accurately. And new finds sometimes push the dates back even further.

Quality of the information from the pop-sci book not withstanding, I've also taken physics courses on the subject. Albeit twenty years ago.

But go ahead, you win the internet argument. When I thought this was a discussion, and I could potentially learn something or help somebody understand, I was happy to participate. But I have no interest in an argument consisting of insults and accusations and no exchange of information. You win, congratulations.

Didn't the people that we today call ancient historians mostly just write about their own time? The very few who wrote about events that preceded their time were not using archeological methods.

But that has nothing to do with the GGGGGP's question about things happening in the past.

I anticipate your reply that the light is just sending information about what happened. But a moving observer could perceive _our_ now as occurring before the events that we now observe in light from the hypothetical 20 million light year distant object.

There is no "now" and no relative, definite "past" for distant objects, even if they are in the same reference frame. It is not intuitive, I understand that. I didn't make the rules.

I do appreciate you insisting that I improve my terminology. And I do appreciate being made to defend myself, I had to go look some of this stuff up. It is fascinating - especially the pre-Einstein work that left everybody puzzled.

LATE EDIT:

  > According to the special theory of relativity introduced by Albert Einstein, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. If one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events.

That's from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

I'll not say that Wikipedia is a particularly good source, I'm happy to be corrected if you have something that contradicts that.

The point I've been trying to make is that one can not travel from one cosmically-distant place in the Earth's reference frame to another cosmically-distant place in the Earth's reference frame without breaking the reference frame. And specific to the GGGGP's question - traveling at the speed of light breaks that reference frame.

Please, pedantically correct my phrase "break the reference frame". I'd like to know how to phrase that properly. "Change reference frame" maybe?