fasa99

We are hardwired for sex and reproduction. It's a simple argument. Assume there's a genetic trait, "horny" (pardon the language). Some have it, some don't. Genes that cause horniness are selected for, those that do not, against. Nature selects for the horny allele every time. Reproduction is deeply intertwined with selection. Look no further than the duck penis [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photograph-of-the-425-cm...] as an example, one of many.

As women are rationally aware especially at this politically polarized and contested time - acting on such instincts have consequences! Pregnancy! That part is not generally seen as much fun by many women.

How I would do it - as far back as the 1880s, ovaries were removed. C-section, as the name tells us, goes back to Caesar. All very old surgeries. So women could have the prescribed number of kids they wished for, particularly if a c-section, and then be sterilized. Now they can freely have sex. Now women have 2,3 kids, not 15,20 at least among the higher classes.

Now move onto the 1960s - the pill. Now you don't even need a surgery and it's reversible - just stop taking the pill.

Now the behaviorial instinct to have sex (side effect: reproduction) has been satiated without the downside. Women are very happy. So now we are simply going through a human genetic bottleneck. There exist alleles instead of "horny" it is "really wants a baby" - now this gene is selected for.

So to summarize the argument: - breeding has been dialed down for over 100 years. satisfying sex drive without pregnancy, in many different ways over time - life always finds a way so in the future, perhaps a few generations, procreative genes will be favored versus horny genes.

Exactly.

I've had managers like this. It's a sort of uncontrolled OCD if I'm being honest, particular painful as well if you know it's a kind, deeply well intended person.. unable to control their OCD. People with OCD applied to a technical field can be brilliant superstars, as is the case here. Of course I said, "maybe better if we part ways". And as I left, I got grilled on, let's say by way of example, how the company NAS worked. Then it became me giving a lesson in NAS 101 and simultaneously explaining how the setup was kosher, because he didn't know jack about NAS setup but had deep anxiety there was a problem. It's like asking a surgeon "I don't trust you, how do I know you're a good surgeon" "you need to explain why you're a good surgeon but also explain surgery on the whole to me at the same time because I don't know it".. after that I cried all the way to a better job with full trust.

Now you all think it's bad in tech, now try medicine. They use "360 reviews" and your "boss" is a bureaucratic admin. It's all politics. If you throw a rock, you'll hit ten people who use reviews as weapons. Telling people off face to face is frowned upon. Penting up the rage for the day the review comes, that is the "safe" method to blow off grievances. At point whichever narrative of their grievance becomes hyperbolic. Medicine itself is saturated with sociopaths, type A personalities, OCD, so there's a lot of people with a lot that they get mad about. If the boss wants you to be the fall guy, nothing you can do. If another department decides they don't like you, or they make you the fall guy, your boss will weigh the politics of the situation, and if you're not politically as important as that department, they'll gladly sacrifice you as a pawn towards their goal. I once got written up due to my deep, seething, hatred of women. The person writing it (now a cancer doctor), you see, they did not claim word nor action against women, for I had committed none. They had seen me make eye contact with a male coworker a single time and thought, "why was he not making eye contact with the FEMALE coworker" and went on a long, long rant expanding upon the basis of this event regarding my hatred of women, perhaps due to an innate psychic ability to read my thoughts, or at least that's how it read. In medicine, that writeup is then held against you. I'm a republican now, in part because of this type of culture and the power people can wield playing games such as this.

I agree. My understanding of layoffs is you're closing out the role, and thus, the person holding the role loses it. This is separate from the actual performance of said person. Conversely, for a poor performer, you're cutting off the person but intend to refill the role with a better one.

Not wild at all. think of brain cancer (AKA GBM AKA glioblastoms multiforme).

The more you think, the more blood to the brain, the faster the cancer grows.

Think about it.

My Tomtom GPS is like this. I have an older model. "Lifetime maps". For many years, plug it in, new map, download done.

Eventually I try to update it and it says "oh no, do you want to buy a map!?". I mean. What? Doesn't even cost anything to the company to keep on giving me free maps - well I guess it's lost revenue if that they could earn by dishonoring the agreement, which is what they did. Clearly meant to extract more money from me in map purchase or to buy another "lifetime" map.

I have another TomTom on my other vehicle (despite the shitty practices, their kit doesn't randomly crash like Garmin in my experience) which about every 2 days nags me about an update. So here I am, newer model is way too aggressive with updates all the time, old "lifetime map" model is a disaster.

What it is here, is there needs to be legislation that if a company uses "lifetime" or equivalent word in marketing, they are on the hook for life to honor that, with some prescribed action to make customers whole if they should want to drop it.

Now a good guy legend in this field, craftsman tools, for many decades in america people would buy craftsman from their sears knowing they could always go back easily and get a replacement. Sears in the day was like if Wal mart and amazon was the same company. An institution.

The bitterest irony about photos or similar is it's quite unlikely they really deleted (or will delete) the photos. I mean. What an amazing walled garden data set for image models. Literally the fuel for Meta or twitter's AI. So here they are sitting on your data, taking advantage, training models, etc.. oh but you want to access the data? Oh no, you didn't pay every month, can't help you.

However it does make me wonder if california's consumer privacy act would cover the right to retrieve photographic data such as this.

It's a real shame, such a phone would be a win-win as far as google's code containing all the NSA backdoors and such, and Huwai's hardware containing all the CSA's hardware backdoors and such. Imagine the cyberspace wars and battles being fought in that phone in your pocket.

Forget about the nuclear plant, the interesting thing here is geopolitics.

Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia back in the day straight up. The US equivalent would be "Hey Detroit, you're a mess, you're no longer part of the US, you're now the city state of Detroit"

So that means pragmatically Malaysia is about as far away as New Jersey from New York City (i.e. very close by). They're this more western gem completely surrounded on all sides by Muslim countries e.g. Indonesia as well. And now drawing this loooonnnggg power line past all these places to the Aussies.

Clearly the geopolitical pressure must be massive if they are spending this vast sum, which COULD BE much less, just to bypass all the neighbors. Not that the US understands Singapore geopolitics very well - whenever a Singaporean such as the tik tok CEO is hauled in front of congress they get grilled on which part of China they're from.

This makes me strike upon an idea seeing as petroleum is leaking from the whale - might whales be used as a renewable oil resource in the same way as renewable lumber? Whale farms and such (not referring to online dating here, but literally a whale farm). The oil of whale might be used for many things such as lighting of lamp or lubrication of machine.

>Imagine your photorealistic inversion AI putting a mole or a wrinkle in the face of somebody without any foundation in the actual hash. Just because it fits better to the trained data.

Seeing as AI was trained on 99999999999999 images of 9999 people, if the image in question is of one of those people, it's well conceivable that the AI will implicitly ID the person and attach their corresponding mole. Or in other words, it's possible a good portion of PhotoDNA's database is in the AI training set, so in principle there are cases where the AI does know.

Are we talking about the time the car hit the mayor on his bike in 2017, or the time the car hit a different mayor in 2019, or the more recent one in 2023?

Either way, when you ram your car into a bicycle it is known as "el san jose hola" or "The San Jose Hello" around here.

>If an action that hurts the stock short-term but will help int he long-term needs to be performed why would you as an investor enact it or even stay for the ride?

Yes and this underpins what most consider the disgusting trait of being excessively greedy, not just executives, doctors specialties like dermatology, anything.

The doctor who wants the ultra high paying medical specialty sometimes cares nothing about becoming rich. Fear. Fear of being crushed by all that student debt. Doing everything possible to avoid that. Planning to start a family, fear of homeless, etc. Fear of being unable to retire. Excess, irrational fear. Then, it passes, and now we have what seems in retrospect, simply a greedy bastard with now an excessive amount of money.

Same with executives, the thought may not be "let me cheese short term gains as hard as possible" but "let me hedge against short term losses as much as possible".

Aggression from sheer greed is human human thought modality. Predatory. Aggression when cornered, anxiety / fear response, arguably a more vicious and nasty aggression, is another very much different type of aggression because it is not predatory. The difference is predatory feels more voluntary and fear is about whether I should risk being super aggressive or not. In defense-of-self aggression, fear as already there plenty, so a person can do about any hyper aggressive evil thing in the name of defending from a perceived threat - such as lay off half the work force, destroy customer relationships, etc. In this way a good leader must have a steady hand and outlook with regards to fear.

For tech and immigration Japan has it all figured out.

No illegal immigration because illegal

No cheesing population growth because over time - a long time - it will repair itself

No high tech because it's not a good thing per se - fax machines and such

Basically the difference between a short term gains company versus long term gains. And look at many of their businesses, many proud to be 1000+ years old and such. Now that's long term gains.

And so the MyNumber as in my view a poor decision. In USA We have had something like MyNumber for a very long time, but because now it's been hacked, now it is called EveryonesNumber. So now I can check how much tax my neighbor has paid, how much my neighbor has in their retirement fund, my neighbor's insurance, a bunch of other stuff in like 10 seconds for like 400 million neighbors.

>ArchiveBox is also gearing up to support real cryptographic signing of archives

That's a really interesting point. The gut reaction is "why are we wasting time on adding a nice-to-have such as a very fancy cousin of the MD5 checksum when the real meat of the time & effort is maximizing data download and scale"

But then, then go read the book 1984 and it may become clear the importance of ensuring the data is unchanged down the road.

But if this is a hedge against hypothetical future 1984 world, one would have to ask - what if the only file available has the wrong md5sum? Because then most people would say, "welp, something is better than nothing" and that's it. Perhaps something that might provide additional information about what/how/where something was changed in more detail.

In the big picture we start with the server side -

>cloud computer running a

>linux machine running a

>virtual machine running a

>linux machine running a

>virtual docker environment running a

>instance of python running a

>virtual python environment running a

>codebase

>serving a

>operating system compiled to

>assembly running on a

>virtual machine compiled to

>javascript JIT comiled to

>assembly running on a

>virtual sandbox running on a

>virtual machine running on a

>linux machine on a

>home computer

So I think we can all agree it's a mess. Magic numbers, frozen configurations, too many configurations that are different. One very elegant around making sure configurations and libraries are setup correctly - perhaps another layer or ten of virtualization?

>driving down micromanagement and all that, all it is is a fear response.

I completely agree, I've seen micromanagers like this. It's fear, and driving the fear is lack of trust. For a good and honest employee, if the founder steps down and says "hey I don't trust you" the instinct is to say "screw you, I'm coming at this honest and fair, working my tail off, now I don't really trust you either" and now it sucks for all parties.

A good leader in "founder mode" -- that's a school principal rolling up their sleeves, picking up a mop, and working shoulder to shoulder with the janitor. "This task is key, let's knock it out together". Maybe they don't have trust yet, maybe they have fear, who knows - but there's an open mind. They'll work together and the founder will figure it out through working together. If all goes well at the end there will be trust, respect, good culture. If it goes poorly now the founder can have a great sense that this was not a good hire. This leader understands that now the janitor will feel "seen", understood, that their work is very important, that leadership is supportive. And will work harder.

A poor leader in "founder mode" -- the school principal asks the janitor to check in every 30 minutes with mopping updates. The mopping will suffer due to the overhead, and constant adjustment to principal feedback. The principal will think "I'm going to put the heat on this guy, then that will make him work MUCH harder!" But in fact it will backfire, the janitor now thinks of the principal as a clown who knows nothing about mopping. The mopping update system changes every week, from every 60 minutes to every 15 minutes, then a mopping update app to increase efficiency. Then the IT department is asked to develop a mopping monitoring app. Ultimately the whole thing collapses and morale dies.

Both these allegorical stories are based on real YC founders I have worked with. Guess which company is wildly successful.

The irony for me is that the "let me put the pressure on this guy, he'll work harder" guy - actually on a personal level a very kind, compassionate, caring guy. Really means well, genuinely cares about his fellow man. Just has this model in their head that generally people don't work unless pressured to do so, like external pressure is a requisite to get anything done at all. My own view is that if a leader showers their people with kindness and respect -- builds loyalty -- then their reports will do anything to please that leader, granted this requires screening for good people during hiring.

Anyway, I think founder mode can be good or bad. It just intensifies either the toxic traits of a bad micromanager leader or it intensifies the positive traits and goodwill of a strong leader.

That's fine, if people go over the bandwidth cap of 10G with their 10G/sec connection, they will be reduced to 2G speed for network congestion protection purposes. Also for and extra $20 you can buy another 10G of bandwidth!

Curse those clever Pro-Palestine hacktivists, what with going onto IA and erasing all material that's critical of Israel

> I hope this was in violation of the regulation: surely you can't invent a new mailing list that didn't used to exist, add me to it, and require me to unsubscribe from it individually.

Exactly, this is the core of the problem. Thought I am grateful for the "unsubscribe" option... I am putridly disgusted by the humiliation of unsubscribing to something I never subscribed to in the first place. It's just awkward and sleazy all around. Put simply : if a name is to be added to such a list, it shall require the consent of said person a priori, a new consent must be made per each list, with blanket future consent strictly banned, and secondly mass solicitations for consent also banned.

To those of you who live in California, I expect many, I would advise in these cases to invoke the CCPA act i.e. (a) "give me all the data you have on me" (b) "delete all the data you have on me". You need to ask (a) first, then given that, then ask (b). If you imply you want the data deleted, they will just delete it and say "oopsie we can't provide you the data", so it's important to perform this sequential order. If Californians did this at mass scale I would imagine there would be a lot of positive bleedover to other states in limiting this behavior.

>What's the case for higher population?

A lot of society is a ponzi scheme e.g. social security, insurance. Young supporting the old. In some senses, young inexperienced people "paying their dues" are handling most of the frontline gruntwork. No young people means scutwork for the rest of us by definition. The final revenge of the young naive. That's the "real world" case for it.

The nationalistic case for it is harnessing a natural resource: population. Big country in terms of population can dominate others economically and militarily. People is power and leaders want power.

The humanistic case for it is that of Eli Musk : humans keep growing exponentially, as does knowledge, as does economy, until blossoming out into space and the universe. The futurist view. Idea being, the more people there are the faster that happens, the lower the risk.

> Let's fix the growth-based economies and move on with fewer but better-off people.

Yes, they will naturally fix themselves. it will be painful for some as goods become more expensive, but life gets easier - less traffic, cheap housing, fruitful resources, and so on. Japan has it figured out. All the beautiful rural places to live. Places like that fully exist in the US now too (see: appalachia)

But here's what happens on the long term that is obvious to me : population will begin growing again. They'll be some gene variant that makes people deeply want to reproduce on a biological level. In a few generations everyone will have this gene (people without it... they didn't reproduce). Call it a genetic bottleneck on the genetic will to procreate.

It's worth noting that in 5-10 years we could easily have cloning vats. We now have "cloning as a service" for all pets and livestock, many such commercial companies - on a biological level it's trivial to imagine the same service and structure for human, the only barrier is ethics and regulations. We have cloned primates and cracked the underlying tricks that might equally clone a human. We have cracked genetic modification vis a vis an infinite number of genetic mouse models and CRISPR. We have early stages of artificial wombs (CHOP; some years ago) but equally one could make a human chimeric pig to incubate the clones. I don't envision this will be seen in the near future but at somepoint, somewhere along the lines, some nation state will begin doing this in secret not unlike a manhattan project, and as we saw with nuclear proliferation, once the cat's out of the bag everyone will do it, everyone will complete the civilizaton "world wonder" called "The Cloning Vats" https://alphacentauri.fandom.com/wiki/The_Cloning_Vats

>Innovation requires reliable funding,

The way I see this argument is "Innovation requires an institution devoted to innovation, which requires reliable funding such as monopolistic or taxpayer"

As you say, on the 1-5 year horizon that's not true. Most successful startups are innovative, we need to look no further than Google itself with its pagerank innovation dominating search. Most universities have innovative researchers, and indeed explicitly set up innovative centers called "incubators" - but of course this is an example of government funding.

One of the first questions is what innovation requires 1-5 years. What about aha moment! innovation? Pagerank is an "aha moment" idea that takes a few months to demonstrate. There are more aha moment innovations than "grind for more than 5 years" I feel. Most of the "grind for 5+ years" innovations have yet to pay off e.g. fusion, super batteries, room temperature semiconductors.

A monopoly offers stable funding for some institution, but at what cost? No capitalistic incentive to improve product? Excess pricing because the consumer has no choice? Surely there are more fair ways to structure this.

Government control would destroy tech, government is not made for it. Look at Amtrak. A nationalized google would wither and get eaten alive by.. ... innovative search startups (themselves without research institutes funded by monopolies), or startups in one of the dozens of fields where Google has spread its tendrils.

Microsoft in its prime is a great example of monopolistic problems. They were a OS monopoly and kept leveraging that to smack down competition wherever they wanted to expand into. Google almost didn't make chrome - the CEO at the time was frightened that Microsoft would annihilate google if google should make a new browser. The monopoly engine allows for ease of dominating more and more industries through lateral growth. This all-encompassing destruction of captalistic price minimization, alone, is why we need to break down big tech monopolies such as google. An example of a "good citizen" non monopolistic company in this setting is Netflix - there's huge competition in entertainment field, they have innovated streaming tech, their profits are meritorious, and they haven't suffocated other fields like other big tech i.e. there's no Netflix phone, no Netflix video game console, no Netflix social media.

The other health of the Netflix / media ecosystem is it's not a duopoly. There's Netflix, there's Apple TV (hello, suffocating new industries!), there's Disney, there's paramount, there's hulu, and so on. This is what competition should look like. This is classic innovation in the capitalist sector, through brutal competition. We not only need to bust up monopolies but to consider duopolies or more generally - busting up groups of companies that collude to price or feature fix as holders of the majority of the market, which is what many duopolies are.

>the expression looks almost grotesquely bad:

"at some point the learning stops and the pain begins"

- S. Rao Kosaraju, Professor Emeritus

That works for the half of it, which blocks people from massing many accounts. Other part is flow control, limit posts to X per unit time e.g. every 5 minutes. That second part is key because we need to be operating under the assumption that said "token account" still has a clever programmer controlling it with selenium / bot. But if we have $100 / 100 posts/day on social media for 1 year or similar, that's now significantly limiting the power of any party to mass advertise. Of course those numbers would need to be tweaked, limits optimized, and then still one worries about state actors and deep pockets.

>Actually - more realistic would be, What if you had the disease in question and knew the cure might (then again might not) have some unknown side effect, up to or even exceeding a 10% chance of death. Would you take it?

Yea.

That exists commonly. It's called high risk surgery.

This genetic disease is more like you die in ~5 years and also all the nerves start to fail including ones involving thinking, memory, personality (cerebral)

Same with cancer truly. Many patients treated for childhood solid tumors go onto get blood cancers due to the treatment/chemo being genotoxic. Oh, and infertile also.

So I think gene therapy should be considered totally valid when these other potentially deadly treatments (surgery, chemo) are used - all of it in deadly situations. Gene therapy also has ways to go, lentiviruses are well known to randomly integrate sometimes in the wrong spot (a tumor suppressor gene) whereas CRISPR can be more targeted.

I'll do a system d but a problem is (1) system environment, and (2) machine specs.

To normalize machine specs I will run it in a VM on the cloud.

To normalize system environment I run in docker.

I also like to run on Java for code safety and consistency.

So what I have is a VM (Java) running on a VM (Docker) running a VM, running a VM (cloud compute), running on system D. I don't think it's abstracted enough though so I'm looking to find ways to add more VMs to the equation, so as to ensure consistency. Figure if I add a few more VMs, good luck hacking that!

I didn't understand any of that.

But what I got out of it was, this hardcore mf doesn't code in assembly, he codes in binary.

To build out this metaphor a little more, John Deere makes the tractor (phone OS) which pulls machinery (apps - plow, fertilizer spreader, harvester, etc). This would be John Deere controlling which equipment the tractor may or may not be allowed to pull, only machinery allowed by John Deere who gets a 30% cut for the privilege. This would be a great deal for Johnny D!

Yea exactly, it's like "I just met you, and this is crazy, here let me shit-test you maybe". Like running a "reverse a linked list" test on first meeting. There is by definition judgement to it, which, judging strangers, can come off as arrogant / condescending

Q: Why are there so many websites that are essentially static HTML that make my phone stutter?

A: because your phone is a potato

The first free tech support from HN is free, subsequent questions will be $29.99 per.

Hi friend, I'm dealing with the same thing and agree with everything you said. ADDITIONALLY we found that it loves office printers, great attack vector to hit the whole office.

Also did you figure out why it reprograms display firmware? It spreads through displays and webcams optically. It can send or receive from either (same way NSA uses speakers as microphones basically). That's not the crazy part though, the crazy part is that it does human and canine retinal embeddings from either. It basically writes code on the retina and then that person can spread it to new systems. That turned out to be the biggest problem on our side. Sunglasses don't work.