km3r

Sorry but the failure of the state to contain the terrorist organization within it does not mean Israel should be expected to sit there and be attacked. Any country, when its citizens are attacked, have a right and a duty to respond.

Or maybe you are confused and think some how Israel has security control within Lebanon? Which is clearly not true.

Lavender specifically calls out NCVs as high as 100 for high level commanders not soldiers, and NCVS aren't minimums they are maximums. Where is the actual case where 100 died for one soldier?

> jailing kids forever for throwing stones

This isn't happening. Kids are being jailed for throwing stones, yes. Just like you or I would be jailed if we threw a rock at a cop. But it is not "forever".

Wouldn't it be better to raise the floor? If given the choice of a higher floor but a higher ceiling of education quality vs equal but lower quality for everyone, I would prefer the former.

As an interesting example, i passed that passage to chatgpt3.5 with the prompt "make the following passage much simpler to understand"

Wibbels says that poorer countries are in a tough spot in the global economy. They rely a lot on money from other countries and mainly sell raw materials to get cash. Because they're so reliant on foreign money, they can't borrow much to manage their economy when things are going bad.

This is a pretty basic prompt too, you can add qualifiers to fit your general audience: "easier to understand for a high school student". You could provide context of previous and subsequent passages as well. Yeah its not perfect, but the right prompt could provide at least a consistent output style.

Is it better to be egalitarian in education or is it better to focus on raising the floor, or raise the median, or providing equal opportunity? They aren't the same thing, and it's very possible that the education system that focuses on one will miss out on parts of the others. You can make moral arguments in favoring each of those options (or even focusing on raising the average).

You can optimize for economic benefit, innovation, fairness, or passions. Their is plenty of non-draconian reasons for preferring each.

Too bad prop 13 means prices would have to drop significantly before any longterm CA homeowner would see any drop. And the valuation dropping that much wiping out so much of their "on paper" wealth would be very unpopular.

No one is suggesting getting rid of industrial zoning. "getting rid of zoning" for the vast majority of people saying it means removing density restrictions and mixed use (business + residential) restrictions.

> marketing their property, doing or managing maintenance, and dealing with tenants

This is property management, not being a landlord. The fact that landlords exist who can fully outsource the management and still turn a significant profit is a sign that our housing market is deeply flawed.

Most of the workday application is written in an in house DSL. Certainly has it's limitations but definitely allows for some impressive feature delivery and stability.

Being a landlord is easy. Property management isn't easy. But it's not exactly hard either.

This is so wrong. US population growth rate, including immigrants, has been trending down for decades. Even the raw number has hovered around 2M per year. While building technologies, number of laborers, and financing has mostly grown over the same time too. We managed to build enough housing to hold the next 2M population generation before, we should absolutely be able to do it today.

Any many of the structural problems are made worse by the “home is your piggy bank” mentality.

If homes are an viewed as an investment, people are incentivized to push for policy that drives prices up faster than inflation. It leads to NIMBY laws, shortsighted assistance to the demand side of the equation (lower rates, special grants/loans), and a reluctance to sell when the market is down.

Home instead should be treated like cars. Big purchases but always a cost. Profit is to be made from production, maintenance, and management. Not from ownership alone.

Healthcare is stupid expensive. Even for those with government provided coverage, it still costs a lot of your tax dollars.

Clearly we are not there yet, but within certain conditions we are getting close. If we enable nurses and doctors to be more productive with these tools, we absolutely should explore that. Keep a doctor in the loop as AI is still error prone, but you can line things up in a way such that doctors make the decision with AI gathered information.

So the scenario (as described by waymo, surely with some spin):

"Driving through a 4 way intersection, while a large truck is also going through the intersection. As you go through, a biker quickly passes behind the truck with minimal time to react once in sightlines."

A human driver would take significantly longer to react, and could be deadly.

Waymo managed to hit the breaks before the collision, potentially leading to only minor scrapes. Feels much better than human would fare in a similar scenario.

What I hope Waymo learbx for this, as well applies as similar scenarios: never cross through these zones of high bike traffic when the obstruction from another vehicle prevents a wide enough view to brake before this zone.

They already do bill for the developer program with the $100/year developer fee. Tying it to installs also makes no sense if the fee is for the dev tools.

Seeing the other comments, it still leaves me the question if this is a limit of scale or a limit of technology? How much more can LLMs scale up over the next decade?

The guy who helped create Wrapped too... sad.

> I will not allow them

Then pay for youtube premium. why should google provide you a service for free, without ads? They aren't slapping users, they are offering ads or paid. Free ad-free was never a sustainable solution.

More so just irresponsible to share 2nd hand rumors without evidence. If someone else had first hand experience that would be one thing, but its far enough away from me to confidently share.

Tbh surprised some of the personal stuff hasn't come to light. Nothing horrendous, but enough to push him out of any CEO role.

It is however, interesting to me to confirm they are aware of other AVs and can sync with them, enable better safety, and potentially could optimize routing through traffic with the combined data. Imagine if the car in front could warn the car behind of an incident, enabling it to take action before a human driver would even be aware of the incident.

If they hate it so much it shouldn't need tagging as it would be naturally lower ranked.

Different forms of art (ai or human made) are good for different situations. Commenting on hacker news has a different set of needs and depth that ChatGPT cannot replicate. But I do switch over to chatGPT when trying to get background information about things. Different 'tools' for different needs.

There is a difference between general AI and generative AI. Humans can be creative and create vast fictional worlds with made up technology and magic. They can also optimize for facts and pass a BAR exam.

LLM like have some form of understanding of the world, not sure if its anywhere near comparable to our understanding though. But they are still not general enough to really focus on facts. They can get close but the nature of statistics means there isn't hard checks to truth.

The file server is only infringing when it serves those files. Photoshop itself isn't infringing just because someone recreates a famous art piece in it, it's the end user that is infringing. The difference between server driver vs user driven creation shifts responsibility.

How is this any different than something like Photoshop? You can recreate (and therefore copy) a piece of art and it's infringement, but not on the part of Photoshop. Yet, Adobe is still well within the right to say you can use what you create with Photoshop. Why can't AI tool makers have the same claim?

Compared to malware, fraud has a lot more of a paper trail, and the AI tools of tomorrow can detect the fraud of today, limiting the damage the fraud can cause. Meanwhile malware can cause a cascading wave of damage very quickly.

I've yet to have a USB C port fail for what it's worth.

Apple had plenty of opportunities to be involved in the development of USB C (they are on the forum). They also could have opened up lightning as an option for USB C. Fighting against using common standards for so long has left them to the whims of others. Be part of the global tech stack instead of a dead end.

Yet a majority of caffeine users don't get addicted, and the increased productivity and freedom seems well worth the trade off on prohibition. There are better solutions to addiction than making everyone else suffer.

Or Google and GM have the data, but aren't sharing it because people will overreact because despite it being an order of magnitude safer than human drivers, it still has some incidents that people will focus in on.