honzabe

> Germany will absolutely not have its own nuclear weapons in 10 years (there are already US nukes stationed in Germany, so foreign ones aren't a change in status quo).

Given the regime change in the US, those would be useless if the goal is to deter Russia, wouldn't they?

> Mark my words, in ten years, at least three out of Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Canada will have nuclear weapons.

My bet would be on Poland, Japan, and South Korea.

And why is almost no one mentioning Taiwan in these discussions? I am probably missing something, but Taiwan would seem like the most likely candidate, assuming they do not want to be swallowed by China.

The cost of the "discovery feature" should be considered too. In my case, the cost (being distracted/annoyed) is so high that it outweighs the benefits of using the app. But maybe this is just my problem. It's entirely possible that I'm more easily distracted than I thought. I considered myself average in that regard. When I read in this discussion how easily some people ignore it (some didn't even notice it)... maybe I should reevaluate.

> I think it's the difference between working with ChatGPT versus playing with ChatGPT.

I think I get what you mean and I agree, kind of. However, even my "playful" mode is a lot more specific - I used to use ChatGPT a lot just for fun, but I still wanted to ask a somewhat specific question. I will give you an example:

"Can you recommend a realistic movie that takes place in the Middle Ages? I don't mean movies where characters played by actors with whitened teeth act the way modern people act - I was hoping for something well-researched and realistically portrayed."

ChatGPT autocomplete suggestions could be useful if your playful mode is so open that you do not care whether you want to know "What is fascism" or "What is an interesting fact about space?"

In my experience, it appears (and keeps changing) while typing. Maybe I do not write fluently enough.

Maybe this is my problem? I can't NOT look at it. Am I easier to distract than the average person? Before someone asks... no, I do not have ADD.

I used to use ChatGPT a lot. I stopped paying the subscription. Partly because I switched to paid Windsurf, but partly because the autocomplete feature makes me hate using ChatGPT. And it seems it would be easy to provide an option to turn that off.

Well... that will give me nightmares. And I am not even an American.

Aristotle explained (in Politics) why running government like a business is a bad idea. Sometimes it feels that we are forgetting what we have learned and have to re-learn it the hard way again and again.

Military analyst Ryan McBeth argues the military industrial complex is nowadays a lot smaller and less influential than people think - he even uses a mental shortcut "military industrial complex does not exist" [1] - make of it what you will. His arguments seem pretty convincing to me.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2gIId1dpDs

> I'd rather my kids have a few gaps in their knowledge than be traumatized by the school system

I went through a normal school system (the first 8 years still during the communist regime in my country, so take that "normal" with a grain of salt), and the gaps in my knowledge are enormous, in some cases subject-wide. I know literally nothing about chemistry, except the bits you learn here and there from TV shows and such. I vaguely remember some kind of equations, but nothing stuck. Biology - everything I know I know from somewhere else, mostly from that TV show with talking blood cells [1]. Surprisingly, I had pretty good grades, but it had nothing to do with knowledge - I was able to quickly scan the textbook before an exam and somehow it was sufficient, but there was no retention, I forgot everything after the exam. I was forced to learn Russian for 4 years and I remember literally nothing, not even the alphabet.

Those are mostly just anecdotes - I am sure that modern schooling can do better than rote memorization in a toxic environment. What I want to say is that motivation, a friendly environment, and fun learning are a lot more important than how well the teacher knows, say, chemistry. It is entirely possible that your kids will retain more knowledge, not less.

I am only talking about elementary school, college was different - I loved it and learned a lot.

[1] Il était une fois... la vie - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0284735/

> all it took was a single run with someone holding the seat

I think this is the key - holding the seat. The author of the article says "I did so in the usual manner - have her sit on the seat while I grab the handlebars and run along side her" - this surprised me, it would never occur to me to grab handlebars. I am not sure why exactly, it's an intuitive thing. As a lifelong road cyclist and an ex-racer, I have a pretty good feel for a bike... and you don't actually steer with handlebars, you "steer" (as in 'control where the bike is going') with your ass (which is why every experienced cyclist can easily turn with both hands off the handlebar). Someone grabbing your handlebars would misalign where your body is going vs where your front wheel is going and this makes you fall.

EDIT: I just realized that "steer with your ass" is something our coach used to say when we were kids. I think "your ass" is a kid-friendly proxy for "your center of mass".

I am not sure I can agree with that. I almost got scammed, but isn't that my responsibility to check?

The thing is, those services really are useful. A lot of stuff that used to be complicated and required me to stand in line somewhere can now be done comfortably from home. Many good things can be abused, but that does not mean they should not be implemented. And you don't have to use it if you do not want to.

Also, I don't know how the scam works behind the login form that stopped me, but I think it would not have worked even if I had given them my info because there is 2FA - how would they overcome that hurdle?

That is the thing - you don't.

In Czechia, something called bank ID is commonly used to authenticate. The point is to verify it is you, for example when you sign a contract online, fill in tax returns online... stuff like that. The way it works is that you are on some site, you get redirected to your internet banking, you log in (that's what I meant by "bank details", I am sorry about expressing myself so clumsily), and your bank redirects you back to that site with confirmation that is you.

Do I need to verify my identity when someone wants to send me money? Who knows. This is the part that made me check. But I was close to not checking simply because it is habitual, and you do stuff like that automatically.

Nowadays, we are often dealing with systems we do not fully understand. You get redirected to some familiar login form, you log in, and you don't even pause. Well, at least I do it. I should be a lot more careful, apparently.

That's bizarre - someone tried to scam me in a similar way literally a few minutes ago.

I am selling something on a marketplace. Someone contacted me - they want to buy the thing I am selling. Do I still have it? I say yes. They say they are sending a GLS courier to collect the item. I figure they need the item fast - we are celebrating Christmas tomorrow. Why not.

The "buyer" sends me a link to a service supposedly offered by GLS, where GLS works as an intermediary - they collected the money from the buyer; when they collect the item, they will pay me. This is happening in the Czech Republic, and services like that seem plausible here. I do not know every detail of every delivery service offered here. The page looks just like an ordinary GLS page. I am in a hurry. I do not pay that much attention. I pause and check only when redirected to my bank's authentication page (this is the phishing part, obviously). Turns out GLS offers no such service.

I was closer to giving them what they wanted than I imagined possible. I was on autopilot until the last second. Not even my bank's login page surprised me that much - we have something called "bank identity" that lets you authenticate stuff by your bank ID. It is so convenient that I got used to it and I do it carelessly.

>> I hate scammers

Yes, me too.

> That is a very particular use of the term 'escalation' which is bound to mislead people.

I am not the OP, but I think your interpretation is not as obvious as you make it to be. This often leads to misunderstandings.

AFAIK military analysts use the term escalation as a morally neutral term. Escalation is anything that goes up on the 'scala' (= "ladder", the Latin root of the word). In this interpretation, D-Day would be an e_scala_tion (climbing up the ladder) simply because opening a new front means number_of_fronts_today > number_of_fronts_yesterday. In this interpretation, self-defense and escalation are not mutually exclusive.

Apparently, the term changed meaning. Many people now treat it the way you do (if I understand you correctly) as something associated with aggression. Therefore, they assume that when someone labels something like an escalation, they mean it is an act of aggression, unjustified, something you should not be allowed to do, and not morally neutral.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am just pointing out that when people talk about escalation, it is worth checking whether they mean the same escalation.

> Public opinion is against further weapons shipments to Ukraine

The linked article is about the opinion of Germans about shipments of German weapons. When you don't specify that in the context of this thread, which is about Europe, not Germany, people might mistakenly interpret that as data about Europe.

> Generally, it seems to me that a lot of people are saying, basically, "I don't want to engage in a social network that isn't and echo chamber of my beliefs."

> I find it incredibly sad. But it does feel like the direction society is moving toward.

It's not that I don't want to engage. I just don't want to be submerged there all the time. I want to spend most of my time surrounded by 'my people' and only once in a while peek outside.

Let me recommend an article by Noah Smith where he argues (IMO convincingly) why he thinks that the internet works better as a fragmented thing https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-internet-wants-to-be-fragm...

> I was speaking to a librarian the other day who teaches incoming freshman how to use LLMs. What was shocking to me is that the librarian said a majority of the kids trust what the computer says by default. Not just LLMs, but generally what they read. That's such a huge shift from my generation.

I think that previous generations were not any different. For most people, trusting is the default mode and you need to learn to distrust a source. I know many people who still have not learned that about the internet in general. These are often older people. They believe insane things just because there exists a nicely looking website claiming that thing.

Location: EU (Czech Republic)

Remote: Yes please

Willing to relocate: Yes, to Spain or Portugal

Technologies: Python (Flask), PostgreSQL, JavaScript (NodeJS, uPlot), HTML/CSS, Stripe API, UX design, market research, and more.

Résumé/CV: https://honzabe.com

Email: honzabe at gmx dot com

Hi, I am a data analyst who can do some programming and an aspiring product developer. I speak Czech, English, and Spanish. I studied psychology and sociology (bachelor's degree). I can offer a useful combination of creativity, analytical thinking, technical knowledge, and people skills.

If I had to make kids read, I would make reading forbidden. There is something about reading as a duty that kills the joy, and others already described it better than I could. I loved reading as I kid, and I was lucky I had read most of the books I love before they were assigned, but I especially loved reading the forbidden books - I grew up in communist Czechoslovakia and reading the "Hedgehog in the Cage" series secretly borrowed from a friendly neighbor was magical. That series is unfortunately totally unknown in the West, but for Czech kids of my generation, that was our Harry Potter.

I like the idea.

I am not a native English speaker, so please take the following with a grain of salt - IMO the copy might need improvement.

When selling something, you want to build a mental slide on which the prospect slides effortlessly toward a clear image of your offer. Your text felt more like a rocky hillside - I had to concentrate and it was slow.

Let me give you an example:

In the realm of Indiebackers: MVP takes on a new meaning – it stands for Most Valuable Person, representing the early adopters who play a pivotal role in the development of products within our community. Indiebackers was conceived with the understanding that a significant number of startups face challenges because they overlook the importance of developing for and with the community. We believe in the idea that a full-scale launch shouldn't be a prerequisite for validating an innovative concept.

In essence, Indiebackers is a collaborative platform meticulously crafted for users to share and explore groundbreaking ideas within the community. Users seize the opportunity to present a deal in exchange for support until the development of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). Our platform is dedicated to facilitating the seamless exchange of ideas, nurturing community engagement, and providing unwavering support for the development of viable and impactful concepts.

I think this text has an unusually high cognitive load. I had to read it a few times to get what you mean: Dear startups, here is the deal. Tell us about your ideas, and we tell you what we think of them before you spend a bunch of money implementing them. Sounds good? Reward us with some perks. - Did I even get it right?

BTW, there's a funny scene in a Czech film most HN users wouldn't know - a dude translates a factual report into marketing speak by adding a lot of adjectives. Your copy reminds me of that scene - it's not just "support", but "unwavering support", not just "crafted" but "meticulously crafted" etc. - it sounds too 'marketingy'.

Just my $0.02

Good luck!

I find it hard to process a text when there is a moving .gif next to it. I had to cover it with my hand to read it. That jumping "Learn more->" button also made reading the text above it weirdly difficult - and that is probably the most important text on the page.

Please take this as a very "soft criticism" because this might be just some peculiarity of my perception.

> They get more valuable the more people are on it.

That depends on your definition of value. I am craving for a small easy-to-use platform for people who are maybe all interested in a certain activity, talk about it, know each other, and support each other. Hopefully, that platform would stay so small that it would not be worth it to flood it with crap content made just as an advertising vehicle, fake reviews, narcissists trying to get attention, and all that crap that comes with the size.

Also, let me question a bit your claim that eyeballs are on X, etc. - I kind of agree, but only if we are talking about people who already have an audience. If you start on Twitter now, nobody will hear you. It's like shouting into emptiness. You have to scream really loud to get attention... and not everybody wants to be a screamer.

Am I wrong? Is it still possible to build an audience by being authentic, without things like commenting not because you have something to say but because you want to get noticed? Or YouTube... is it still possible to be seen without chasing retention and all the things Mr Beast talks about?

I miss those days of small internet when you could start a blog just for fun, about something that you simply liked, and people would somehow find you without the need to stuff your content with SEO words, do social media, link-building, and god knows what else people have to do these days.

Or maybe... am I turning into a "good old days" old dude?

> I think I've heard this in reference to the difficulty of software estimation.

I don't like linking to Quora but I have to link the legendary "coastline trip" story posted by Michael Wolfe as a response to the question "Why are software development task estimations regularly off by a factor of 2-3?"

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-software-development-task-esti...

Why? Nuclear plants are extremely valuable targets for at least two reasons:

1. Destroying them can cause great environmental damage. People are going to be afraid of something like intentionally caused Chornobyl, which gives the attacker a lot of leverage.

2. Nuclear plant is a very centralized energy source, which means a huge disruption when one of them is hit.

I can't think of any other industrial complex that makes a country that vulnerable in case of a war.

I have read an argument that this does not solve much, because "as commander-in-chief, Trump could (and likely would) simply refuse to order the military to come to the aid of NATO allies in the event of a Russian attack."

[1] https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/some-thoughts-on-where-the-war...

BTW, the linked article by Noah Smith is pretty interesting, IMHO.

For me, social media platforms are on a scale that goes from negative to positive values. The negative side is energy-burning, the positive is energy-adding. One side inspires me. The other makes me feel drained.

I have to keep on the positive side of the scale - Hacker News, some great YouTube channels about things that really interest me. Sometimes, I can venture to the slightly negative side, like "funny" videos about people farting in public and cute dogs... but this is like diving - it is fun for a short while, but if you stay too long, you run out of air and die. And I know from experience there are depths of the negative side where I cannot go - TikTok, Twitter, those crush my soul (subjective thing, I'm sure some find those inspiring).

Also, like with everything else, moderation is key. Even with things on the positive side.

It's not like the EU is some separate entity endowed by special stupidity. It's just "us", humans - some of us smart/informed, some of us less so. If you remove your country from the whole, one time you might be out of reach of some stupid idea from the outside, the other time you will be out of reach of the reasonable voices outside, fully exposed to your home-grown bad ideas.

And that is ignoring the fact that if your country left, you would in practice still adhere to those stupid rules because half of your country does business with the EU. You would just lose influence on those rules.

At least being a part of a large entity has some advantages on the world stage.

First, you are right I should not assume anyone's knowledge (or lack thereof). It just popped into my mind as something that could explain the thing that's been puzzling me for months - what are people talking about when they say that LLMs are not actually reasoning, or Stable Diffusion is not actually creating? I wish I had not included that assumption and was inquisitive instead. Let me try again.

Maybe I diverted your focus the wrong way when I used LLMs as an example - what if I used more general term "neural network"? I said LLMs because this thread is about LLMs but let me clarify what I meant:

The thing that interests me in this thread is the claim that LLMs are "not capable of actually reasoning". Whether you agree with it depends on your mental model of actual reasoning, right?

My model of reasoning: the fundamental thing about it is that I have a network of things. The signal travels through the network guided by the weight of connections between them and fires some pattern of the things. That pattern represents something. Maybe it is a word in the case of LLMs (or syllable or whatever the token actually is - let's ignore those details for now) or a thought in the case of my brain (I was not saying people reason in language) - the resulting "token" can be many things, I imagine (like some mental representation of objects and their positions in spatial reasoning) - those are the specifics, but "essentially", the underlying mechanism is the same.

In my mental model, there is nothing fundamental that distinguishes what LLMs do from the "actual reasoning". If you have enough compute and good enough training data, you can create LLM reasoning as well as humans - that is my default hypothesis.

If I understand your position, you would not agree with that, correct? I am not claiming you are wrong - I know way too little for that. I would just be really curious - what is your mental model of actual reasoning? What does it have that LLMs do not have?

I know you mentioned that "these models have no capacity to plan ahead" - I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. Is this not just a matter of training?

BTW, I have talked about this topic before and some people apparently see conscience as a necessary part of actual reasoning. I do not - do you?

I think the word "essentially" is important here. I don't think we can observe how we think. How it appears in consciousness is not necessarily real - it might be just a model constructed ex-post.

I do not know that much about AI but I know at least something about cognitive psychology and it seems to me that a lot of claims about LLMs "not actually reasoning" and similar are probably made by CS graduates who have unreflected assumptions about how human thinking works.

I don't claim to know how human thinking works but if there is one thing I would conclude from studying psychology and knowing at least some basics about neuroscience, it would be that "it's not how it appears to us".

Nobody knows how human reasoning actually works but if I had to guess (based on my amateurish mental model of the functioning of the human brain), I would say that it is probably a lot closer to LLMs and a lot less rational than is commonly assumed in discussions like this one.