getmeinrn

It was fixed.

Duplicate, which also got on the front page without a working link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881510

What's your secret for getting 1 upvote per minute even when the link doesn't work?

Same. Interesting that a broken link can get so many upvotes so quickly.

The lede is that 2 orders of magnitude more of injury exists than previously detected. 1 in 35 showed signs of heart damage.

Why be secretive about abusing a loophole with a company you might have a relationship with?

To go back to my original post, my main beef is with turning an imperative language into a declarative one. If you've seen enough of these types of languages degrade, you start to see a pattern.

I don't really know what you're saying, can you say it another way? "Most realistic evolution"... why is that needed? If the problem is different database engines implementing the SQL spec differently, that's not something that can be papered over with another abstraction without a lot of wrinkles.

This is the closest example I could find https://www.pulumi.com/docs/concepts/how-pulumi-works/

Pulumi serves as the strongest contender to Terraform when doing IaC (infrastructure as code). Terraform attempts to be a declarative markup language (HCL) but it has a lot of weird imperative quirks due to (understandably) trying to support common complex use cases. In the end they have a clunky custom language that tries to do what general programming languages have done well forever. Pulumi doesn't re-invent the wheel, and lets programming languages do what they do best. Pulumi only really cares that the programming language generates a declarative spec that can be used to compare with your infrastructure. It's the best of both worlds.

>declarative

An admirable ideal, but declarative languages always seem to devolve towards some frankenstein imperative/declarative hybrid. We need to stop going down this path and embrace Pulumi's pattern: use existing general purpose imperative languages to generate a declarative structure. Instead, people try to take their not-mature declarative language and fit a weird general purpose language inside it.

EDIT>> I'm not suggesting that SQL needs to be declarative, only that if a problem space would benefit from declarative structures, generate them imperatively instead.

Here's EPIC's statement on why Worldcoin is a "potential privacy nightmare":

>Worldcoin is a potential privacy nightmare that offers a biometrics-dependent vision of digital identity and cryptocurrency, and would place Sam Altman’s Tools for Humanity company at the center of digital governance. Worldcoin’s approach creates serious privacy risks by bribing the poorest and most vulnerable people to turn over unchangeable biometrics like iris scans and facial recognition images in exchange for a small payout. Mass collections of biometrics like Worldcoin threaten people’s privacy on a grand scale, both if the company misuses the information it collects, and if that data is stolen. Ultimately, Worldcoin wants to become the default digital ID and a global currency without democratic buy-in at the start, that alone is a compelling reason not to turn over your biometrics, personal information, and geolocation data to a private company. We urge regulatory agencies around the world to closely scrutinize Worldcoin.

https://epic.org/epic-statement-on-privacy-risks-of-worldcoi...

>And yet we know perfectly well that there were many people who were vaccinated who did get breakthrough infections and some of those have gone on to get long Covid, but we know that in those breakthrough cases in the vaccinated people, your chance of long Covid is further reduced perhaps by another 50 percent.

As far as I see, they aren't referencing a specific study. But they are clearly making a connection between your long covid chances and vaccination. Does anyone have a link off hand to this data?

How do you do science on LLMs? I would imagine that is super important, given their broad impact on the social fabric. But they're non-deterministic, very expensive to train, and subjective. I understand we have some benchmarks for roughly understanding a model's competence. But is there any work in the area of understanding, through repeatable experiments, why LLMs behave how they do?

Do we care?

"I don't think about you at all."

This is what affirmative action should be... helping people out based on their individual situation, not because their skin color or gender.

"Inflation’s silver lining: higher salaries" [1]

But you're making a bigger number, so it's fine! Don't mind those that own everything unofficially taxing those that own nothing with inflation.

1. https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1413132513350803460

I was going to post about "use a UUID", but I was surprised to learn that no UUID uses both timestamp + a random component. You can either get fully random with UUID4, or have a time + MAC based UUID with UUID1. Strange, I would have thought there would exist a UUID that uses time + random to minimize collisions like described in the post.

I was talking with a small startup founder about a project I had licensed under AGPL. He asked, "How do you know if someone uses your project against your licence though?" with a smile. His point wasn't anything new, but I still didn't have a great answer. I just said that it would require the company being honest and purchase a commercial license, and that I have personally worked at companies that evaluate their licenses to make sure they are in compliance.

But his immediate reaction being the thought of abusing the license was irritating. I can't say that I have never thought this way (of using "free" software, licenses be damned) when I was younger & in school. But as the owner of legitimate business, it seems so perverse. It screws small creators and discourages them from sharing their work with everyone.

Reminds me of a Tolkien quote:

  Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made.

>maybe someone will solve this

It's solved by you going to the new page, reading every submission, and upvoting the interesting ones. Incentivize that.

I haven't felt the need to write my thoughts as much, but not because I have any concerns about it being used as part of some training data. Mostly it's because I don't know if I'm interacting with real people anymore.

The basilisk will remember this.

Yeah, I would much rather live in a world where some disconnected busybody goes around assigning salaries to everyone based on $CURRENT_SOCIAL_TREND, than to have wealthy people who feel guilty about their earnings. /s

Random thought, but if we extrapolate the path we're on in terms of biodegradability and sustainability, it's not ridiculous to assume that a very advanced version of us would have developed the technology and legislation to ensure that all products biodegrade safely within X years.

Yeah I would delete this post and 100% report what you know to the authorities. Not to sound dramatic but peoples lives could literally be at stake.

Don't pull the "my body my choice" bs, because it doesn't apply when commerce is involved. You're free to cut out your own organs, you're not free to create a system of economic incentives for that process, because that's outside of your body and clearly in the realm of broader social impact. I know you know that the government regulates business.

This problem is solvable through social programs, and I made another post in this thread explaining how I think that might work.

I don't think the allure of extremely desperate people selling their body parts will ever go away if an economy gets bad enough, and an economy being bad enough is not always dependent on some specific theoretically-easy-to-fix geopolitical situation.

Yes - fix poverty, no - higher order effects will fix themselves.

Think about how many billions of COVID relief funds were stolen due to governments being terrible or corrupt at administration. There has to be some (perceived) risk to taking common resources. And that risk needs to be calibrated so that it does not phase truly desperate people, but discourages exploitative people to move on to easier targets. Imagine if by taking COVID relief funds, you signed a contract that could destroy your business and made everyone in your organization personally criminally liable, if the funds were taken fraudulently.

This is one of those really horrible situations that you want to ban because the knowledge of its existence is too depressing to grasp. But if you ban it, you haven't solved the poverty issue, in fact you've made people even more desperate. It becomes even more dangerous, higher prices due to lower supply.

But the opposite isn't desirable either. Sure, you can make it more legal, but now these people are being systematically exploited for their organs and there would be very little reason for it to go away, meaning there would now be incentives to keep people brutally poor so that you can get their organs.

What if you made a social program that said "if you are desperate enough to sell your organs, come to us and we will give you resources so you don't need to (Conditions apply)." And in order to curb abuse, some small percentage of the applicants actually were required to donate an organ, so that the program wasn't exploited by people stealing resources from those very desperate people. If you take resources from this program, you risk actually selling an organ like you otherwise intended. Only truly desperate people would be brave enough to use the program. And if you think that compelled donation is also barbaric, even in a small percentage, it would actually be a lie, but one that some portion of the program's budget is dedicated to upholding.

The only startup opportunity you should be thinking about is how to reduce this situation from existing in the first place.

I can think of a scenario where someone might.

Suppose you made it very easy for them to sign it over, with the contracts ready and someone in person ready to guide you through signing them. You could apply guilt and some made up scenario about needing those shares back so that the company can move forwards. Enough spin and pressure could do it.