floodle

You don't have to get excited by anything. You are welcome to boycott the village fête because you think they didn't put enough effort into their poster. Your choice, my friend.

Calling it a "technicality" assumes the very thing under debate: that AI is an extinction-level risk. That isn't established fact. It's a highly uncertain prediction about the future.

Personally, I'm far more concerned about climate change, where the harms are already happening and the evidence is much stronger.

How are you modelling how demand changes in response to price changes?

It's about the value to you versus the effort you put in. For me the granularity you are talking about is too much effort. All my supermarket shops go in one big category "groceries and household".

Start easy and see what you want to get out of the data. If you can store the original source (e.g receipts) so that you can later go back and increase the granularity if you find yourself wanting it, that would be ideal.

It's easier to view the tweet, to be fair

I don't get all of the complaints about the tone of AI chatbots. Honestly I don't care all that much if it's bubbly, professional, jokey, cutesey, sycophantic, maniacal, full of emojis. It's just a tool, the output primarily just has to be functionally useful.

I'm not saying nice user interface design isn't important, but at this point with the technology it just seems less important than discussions about the actual task-solving capabilities of these new releases.

You can't extrapolate from your own experience in that way. There are billions of people having a different experience to you in a multitude of different ways.

Then just don't go? I personally prefer mixed gender spaces but I can understand why some people might prefer single gender spaces. It doesn't mean they necessarily have "an issue".

Because it's an easy and widely used framework to write JavaScript components that react to changes in state

The diff will tell you what's changed, but it doesn't tell you the "why" of the change. A project should store that information somewhere; whether it's in pull request descriptions, issues/tickets, or the commit message, which is a perfectly reasonable choice.

I love this:

> Note that these are large files; both are over 1.6 Megabytes, so don’t load these if you have a slow Internet connection

Just shows how far internet speeds have come...

I did often in my degree, not for multiplication but the cross product

Agreed! It looks cool, but it's not the best visualisation to actually read the data.

This comment is ridiculous. What are the units of intelligence? Since when is charming people a trade-off against solving problems? Why do you equate extroversion to charming people?

USB C ports break just when I look at them slightly wrongly. In comparison to that, 3.5mm is a dream.

The amount of times I see this with projects on HN is crazy. The one thing I want to know is how the output looks.

Does it really matter if it's fake? It's a plausible scenario, and worth discussing. Fiction books can raise interesting questions about science and technology. And the implications of AI is very much HN's wheelhouse.

I wouldn't assume people know what a link-in-bio is. I've never heard of it.

It's a wild idea to take a completely digital asset, print it in Europe on to paper, and then put it on a ship and slowly transport it to Canada.

A programming language should be first and foremost precise and readable, not concise. I can barely understand the clojure version but when I read the "traditional" one I don't even need to think.

If you work with clojure a lot, does it become natural?

I don't know what a fusion splicer is but I want one

I just feel like they are limiting their user base by only supporting Javascript.

It's of course the de-facto language for interactive display in browsers. The use case for dashboards and data visualisation is clear. But it's an awful language for data science and data analysis, compared to Python or R.

Bravo! Perfectly said

> simple, fun task every day

Honestly, comparing two options is much more fun than scrolling through a massive list and trying to figure out what your favourite item is

I agree, the statement is just poorly written. A qualifier like "awful" is only ever in relation to something else.

Statement 3 (the world can be much better) is essentially a better formulation. 4.4% is awful in relation to 0.47%, which is possible.

> This way the market will solve the problem

Capitalism has shown itself to have a complete inability to correctly price in the value of ecosystem services and the costs of environmental externalities. The profit cycle also operates on too small a timeframe for these climate issues.

Thinking the market will save us is just a convienient pipe dream.

I'm also seeing valid links to reuters.com coming up as 401 unauthorized

n=1

> So far for me they have only really been able to summarise what I could find from the top few results searching online

This has been my experience, except that the chat interface gets me to exactly the answer to my question considerably faster than a search engine.

I see these tools as search engines with much better user interfaces and customised responses.

It can also just be pure chance. Sometimes there is no pattern.