1,826 karma · joined June 3, 2020
AI vehicle coordination (and autonomous driving) could save so much traffic.
But before I get into a rant here: Munich seems like the perfect city for this beta, and I wish them loads of success.
Munich has wide streets, affluent population, and a freshly elected progressive government.
The welfare states in Europe also face difficulties, there will be no retirement money or housing for many people who struggled all their life and did everything they could to live a normal and productive life.
"The poor" for many people becomes very close to "those who are not rich" and/or gifted with a large social network of mutual care (financial, social).
Being single is expensive. There are more single person households than ever.
Care for sick elderly people will probably not exist anymore for the people who today pay for that of the elderly today, again, unless you are pretty rich.
We need a renewed culture of sharing things.
And regarding the boarding house threads:
I can imagine the dirt and filth around unchecked shared housing for sick people.
But why does it have to be this way? Why is it not possible for some people to choose living in a simple way, sharing some aspects of housing such as bathrooms and kitches, and still be safe? It's not a novel concept. People seem to be just to be very entitled nowadays.
It requires an authority in some cases, sure. But many people around the world do live in lockable small rental units that share bathrooms with others, without being drug-addicted outcasts.
Sure, comfort and space and luxury is nice and I'm not a saint either, who chastices themselves into living from nothing. Not at all. But I think it's worth exploring other forms of living. We are clearly in a dead end. The standard of owning a house is not achievable for everyone, and renting an apartment as a single is not much cheaper in the long run either.
IMO, the demands of people are so high, and I for one would welcome more simple possibilities for people who live on their own to instead live in "managed" communities.
Love the concrete examples!
It is not possible for millions and trillions of people to all live like a duke in their own house, it is not sustainable, and not even desirable. At the same time, I hate the attitude that everyone without a caring family or lots of property and money should be an outcast. Or, in other words, society should provide some leeway for those who can't match the standard family-household-model, without pushing them on the street.
It's not about the bread being honest with you.
Are you being serious?
- the *landing strip* should be avoided completely, to prevent delays caused by non-eligible standard- or Pro-tier users.
- in the past, there were numerous exploits of this vulnerability, particularly 8.4e (#665, merged in !73 as "Resolve exclamation mark virtualization",d7ef1acg286acaf) and Addendum should make sure to not break exisitng housing and energy supplies
- once the in-flight developments (foobric-tor@2example.org, see description) crashing in a *real* scenario into the ground, we can launch the harness without this expensive Do you want to go ahead with the comment crtique, or let me draft an improved version immediately?
Maybe the user is using Claude as part of their application?
Although I can't find the legal documents confirming this, I suspect that this runs counter to my instructions and basic rules.
Let me add an appropriate, domain-specific error message here.
But wait. Maybe this is expected behavior?
Let me run all e2e tests and inspect the trace.
Maybe this is expected? As per CT61 I should ask the user about this.
Wait. No, there's a fundamental problem with the application build.
Let me dig deeper.
Thinking
While the sub-agents run, I should grep the entire code base for the word "Claude". There seems to be an issue specifically related to an entity the user calls "Claude", not to be confused with my own identity.
Claude seems to be a regular contributor. This rules out the fundamental build issue thesis. Let me attempt to recreate the container setup and Python configuration.
Wait. The user asked me not to overcomplicate.
Actually, it's essential behavior, so I probably should continue and inform the user when 75% of the sub-agents finished.
Stop!
The user says "Stop!" without further context. This warrants a more thorough investigation.
So kinda charitable :)
I was recently wondering for a minute, shame on me, what "the stand of the deployment" means, because in the given context, it was almost halfway meaningful to consider the AI thinking that the deployment "has a stand" on something, when compared to the development environment.
Jargon is even worse though, and I've not yet verifies whether it gets reinforced by language mixing.
"Decider-verifyer resolution" was kind of neat, however, it wasn't some sophisticated machine, it was the verification loop I agreed on with the AI (mix of tools usage and manual steps).
But one is in a section called "Website actions", then there's another one in a section named "Website settings".
I didn't even notice it myself until now.
In earlier versions (before Liquid glass redesign I guess, which enlarged all dropdown paddings), the latter was called "always request Desktop site for xyz".
Or only advertising in media?
Urban spaces? Sure I'd say, but what about your storefront?
Encouraging word of mouth?
Advertising is shitty but how would you realistically even make it illegal without violating free speech.
Also, advertising does have a good-faith purpose in functioning markets.
Failures in regulation IMO are mostly at entirely different levels.
E.g. monetization of public utilities and public space. Noise, brightness, and of course deceptive tactics could all be better regulated as well.
But advertising, including its diffusion into general pop culture and entertainment, is older than the printing press, and I think for a broad sense of "advertising", even a lot older.
Favicon can be part of the DOM ever since icons via ~~meta~~ link tags were introduced, because they can be more hi-res than the default favicon.ico file.
I've never thought about the ability to swap it dynamically though, although I've seen some site do that before.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document/vi...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document/ti...
Also, more than 5 yrs after Galaxy Fold (I've never seen or held one IRL):
is it really that valuable to have "marginless" foldable displays?
Often times, users will divide the screen into halves, at least, when using large resolution.
And users are also not too interested in curved or mangled output surfaces, the ideal is an evenly lighted 2D surface.
If you were working on military technology, that's irrelevant of course. Then, the consumer tech is just a small venture capital driver.
No "foldable" real currently comes close to two flexable screens placed close to each other.
Consumers have repeatedly rejected this hype.
The only interesting value is in completely flexible material with fixed-distance OLEDs on it, and that's a very complicated engineering problem approaching a digital "invibility coat".
In-between these extreme uses, I struggle to see the benefit of foldable screns.
A cheap and robust e-ink screen would be a welcome exception, but I have no idea how much the science overlaps with marginless, foldable LED panels.
Wondering, sorry if it's a dumb triviality to ask.
Is this even a (sub-)version number? I mean the major version is clearly 4.
Of course nobody asks people they want to get into a contract to lick an escalator handway. That was the word I was looking for, I think.
The show ran on TV when I was young, I didn't even watch it.
From the (ethics) team obviously, because the investors just have goals and aren't a team!
Big irony marker of course. But remarkably, in human history, this line of thinking would not be unheard of. Of course, I don't think it easily adapts to companies, so I don't really disagree with you.
Remember that MTV show offering people like 5 grand or something to lick an elevator handway in front of a camera?
Well, if someone has a useful idea in this world, and want to build a company from it, the MTV "lick-the-stairway" offers will be the largest and first hurdle before anything else happens. People will simply offer to buy you out, and that's not limited to founders and creatives.
That's how our system works.
They are "betting" pennies in their books.
Rarity equating monetary value is a common logical fallacy often found with stamps and other collectable cultural artifacts (details would disgress too much here, see Pokemon cards or whatever).
And rarity vs quality ir utility is even harder.
But value is 1) not determined by scarcity and 2) neither by "unique information content" (because that's by definition not measurable without a panopticon) and 3) nor by "creative value" per se 4) it is indeterminate whether some detail in a work might prove useful later, in general. Even for scientific papers.
They just can bet on all fronts and for training material it's 100% rational to do it.
Apart from that, to briefly disgress into the discussion of "cultural value": many cultural works we hold as very important today were sold for cheap, if at all, when the author died.
Music scores are good examples.
But back to the broader "value"/rarity angle:
The historical value of some odd self-help or DIY instructions book from the 80s is hard to determine! It might happen to be able to provide a secondary source for something, or even act as primary source for some other fact of the time that is tangential to its subject.
None of the qualities that make trivial literature interesting to, for example, researchers, must correlate with market value (at the time of writing or at the time of research?).
Sure, there are truckloads of "unique" books from even 200 years ago that are neither culturally valuable nor sellable right now.
But these things can change quickly.
Imagine you want research details about old retail products.
Or the usual street price of something in some city at a specific time.
Or the inhabitant of a certain rentable space at a certain time.
Or some specific detail about replacing the parts of a certain type of car that's no longer around (is this valuable then?).
Humans create endless complexities, and monetary or evolutionary value is not coupled anymore to step-changes such as "how to light a fire using X,Y,Z".
We're deep down the rabbit-holes of our own ephemeral shaping of our world.
What word was commonly used to describe a sandwich in 1925 in Hungary.
Or what problems did people commonly encounter when repairing car doors in the 1940s in England?
Whatever. I can't make up a good example right now, but market value does not imply quality; and even quality (according to some cultural norm) is not universally measurable.
Genuine answer I got when I pointed out at a previous job that we were mixing immmediately effective toggles with other, non-immediately-effective inputs in the same form.
The save button was meant to do nothing.
I know, this article is about the toggle state (e.g. "Mute" or "Unmute").
But since toggles are more and more part of forms, I'm in for a rant about that.
The no-op save-/done-button pattern has been established for a while now, see the "Done" button in this post. I think Apple started incorporating toggles into forms.
But mixing both is truly evil.
Apple is most times better in its own apps when it comes to that, because they make clear whenever a setting is "dirty", but they started all this.
I don't remember which one it was, but recently I used a web or native app with settings forms, where the pages had a "save" button at the bottom and a "done" button at the top.
"Done" would silently (!) discard your changes.
In the situation I mentioned before, "Done" was meant to be a no-op for immediately effective controls and an "Apply" or "Save" for the ones that weren't.
But as the world moves towards immediately effective controls, it should be really emphasized that the most important thing to me, as a user, is whether the form is in "auto-save" mode or not, and in almost all cases, the same paradigm should apply across the whole form.
And of course this begs the question who has power and who should have power.
The will to improve living conditions comes from the interests of those who have political power, in my view. You can say because of democracy if you like. Or, more cynically, dependence on labor and consumption (Fordism), or, more idealistically, ethical values in powerful people themselves, and all of that are nuances and not absolutes I guess.
But I wouldn't say that my definition was precise.
I just wanted to point out that it is not a given for politics to have the goal of optimizing utilitarian interests, maximizing wellbeing or long-term goals such as protecting people.
In other words, participants in politics do not only discuss how things should be achieved, but also what should be achieved.
If that makes sense: this is what I meant by "balancing powers". I'm not sure right now how to map it to the two poles you describe.
I doubt I'd have gotten to visit Poland without the EU so far (I'm not a frequent traveler...).
And Poland has, even when they had a government being at odds with the EU, never acted in some openly destructive way inside the EU. They always made clear what they want to be a part of, and what they don't want, and then, honestly followed through.
Not having the Euro or being more conservative is completely fine, as long as basic human rights aren't violated in a comparatively excessive way, and my impression of Poland and Polish people has always been a very friendly one.
I was in Łódź at the time, and there was a well thought-out program to connect the students, who were quite disconnected in the early 2000s, and had wildly different living situations + language barriers between each pair of students were also very diverse.
Credit to the EU for funding such a program is very much appropriate.
This is a very agreeable statement, but I'd add that politics is not about finding the Kantian truth of what's best for everyone (inside the country? globally? also immigrants? lazy and ugly natives?).
It's about balancing interests. Of course, the idea of free market democracy was/is that both goals eventually converge.
The CF lava lamp is a cool curiosity, but also a marketing gadget.
I'm afraid my perspective is skewed by personal experience, but I flagged this without clicking the link.
I'm also afraid this might violate HN guidelines, sp I'll unflag it now and leave it at that.
But the regurgitation of older, well-received topics in pursuit of publicity is something I heartily detest.
So, I'm gonna skim for new details and stay quiet for now :)
I'm not sure cause I'm not an English native speaker and on the Aspergers spectrum, but I think this is sarcasm.