hananova

Dating apps are a Cursed Problem: If they worked well, they’d be out of business. Therefore they must not work well.

I just don’t understand why casino’s feel the need to do that. They already have the edge, they would still turn a profit.

Same goes for banning advantage players. Why? The people that can successfully do it are a vanishingly small group, and even if every single one of them picks your casino because it doesn’t ban advantage players, the sheer amount of incompetent advantage players that would try alongside those would make it so you still turn a profit.

The name FM always bothered me. You're not modulating the frequency, you're modulating the phase. PM would be a better name.

If you were to modulate frequency, well first of all you'd have to define a reference point or you'd just get glitchy sound. In practice that means most FM implementations just have a highly oversampled single cycle of a sine wave in memory, and it's the speed at which the sample pointer consumes the looping sine that's set to correspond to some frequency, and then that value is modulated. In other words, phase modulation.

No, just tried that. In this case it’s blocked on the recipient side, not on the sender side.

Actually I didn’t sign anything. And I will watch online content however I want to. You’re free to paywall it or not put it online at all if you don’t like it, someone else will fill the gap.

It’s actually trivially easy to detect if someone isn’t verified adult: If you DM them something normal it’ll go through, but if you try to send them any image marked as spoiler it’ll show you an error, and they don’t see anything.

So yes, it’s super easy for groomers to focus on children with this update.

You simply do not say something like “we don’t record continuously” if the reality is that you only record when voice control or speech to text is active. Given the entire industry’s track record, the only sane thing to do when confronted with weasel wording is to assume the truth is the worst possible interpretation that isn’t a blatant lie, and even then, sometimes it is just a blatant lie.

Here’s some examples:

- We don’t record continuously -> We record nearly all the time, only stopping to upload the recording.

- We do not sell your data -> But we do “share” it.

- All your data is protected from unauthorized LLM scraping -> But we define all the big tech companies as authorized scraping.

Of course you can. Stockfish plays very different compared to a human, and it never ever blunders or makes mistakes.

That proves what data travels between your computer and the API server, not what data may or may not secretly get shared within processes at the API server.

Valve has in the past given refunds for something that was changed to deliberately no longer work on certain systems. Given that this involves their own hardware devices in this case they're likely to do so here.

Except nobody can prove that those subagents aren't secretly sharing information with the main agent in the backend, and frankly I don't trust Anthropic not to do exactly that to cheese benchmarks.

Given how often dang replies to an @dang post, he clearly has a running search for it. Expecting us to go out of band is ridiculous and won't happen.

There's already been one case where the prompts were allowed to as a subject of discovery, and lying about it is perjury. Lawyers really are probably safe.

Yes, sociopathic tech bros making everything insanely expensive for regular people is indeed incredibly disrespectful!

You’re deliberately bringing up irrelevant minimal counter examples in bad faith.

Yes that is one part of how dog whistles work. Disguise it well enough to get rubes to run interference for you. You’re doing that very well.

This is why you do not disclose anything until the contract is signed.

Doesn't change anything. If you buy something for a certain price, regardless of whatever reasons you have for doing so (including but not limited to, being rich and irresponsible, being insane, or doing it for the memes.) Then that thing has that value to you at that point in time.

Whether someone else will share your judgment of its worth is highly unlikely, but it is also entirely irrelevant. Worth has never meant "objective value to literally everyone."

I think you and I interpreted "this site" differently. I interpreted it as the site being linked to, this referring to the subject of the comment. I think you're interpreting it as hacker news?

At this point I'm not sure what was actually meant. The website of the article doesn't set any cookies on my machine, and HN's session cookie likely doesn't need ePrivacy directive consent since it's actually functional.

I did not see any cookies on my machine. Maybe it sets cookies outside of the EU?

It doesn't set cookies so it doesn't have to ask.

"May contain X" labels are usually not allowed here with some exceptions. This has some downsides (like deliberately adding allergens to food because it's impossible to make sure there are absolutely none) but in general you can't just hedge your way past regulations.

Long time contributors risk expulsion. First time contributors will face additional scrutiny. Slaving over your LLM extrusions to make it appear human made, thereby reading and reviewing it, is an acceptable outcome.

How is saying that a model “causes terror” praise?

You’re right though. It is terrific. (Btw you might want to look up what that word means.)

Not a single person is unaware if their projects are handwritten or vibe coded. Nobody is actually confused or concerned, you are just jaqing off.

That's fine, you're not welcome there anyway.

No, the question is a classic case of jaqing off. Not a single person is in actual doubt which side of the line they fall on.

Your second paragraph is a strawman.

In a just world, OpenAI would get the book tossed at them over this because they violated the CFAA.

You’re doing it the wrong way around, try intentionally letting your eyes defocus.