ndarray

That's where "being able to defend your resources" comes in, otherwise they're not rich. But yes, I'm implying that in the future the defense could be done by something like armed drones. And "defense" would mean enforcement of whatever draconian laws they cook up. When the executive branch is non-human, you can never have a mutiny. You simply don't need to do any convincing or any pretending that you're a good guy. All you need is to outproduce the humans, make more drones than they can put up resistance. And drones are cheap, even today, and would only be one piece of the equation anyway, among direct access to your bank account, real-time AI surveillance for minute missteps, crowd control weapons mounted to autonomous vehicles,... all in all pretty grim. The question is who gets to be the elite. It's not obvious that it should be the Silicon Valley guys. We'll surely have massive elite wars (fought by humans + AI), sold to us as civil/national wars and people's revolutions, before the above pans out. The partial release of the Epstein files is one cluster of the elite (around Trump) threatening another. I'd wager that a lot of dirt will see the light of day in the next ten years and underneath it will be the fight over who gets to command the new kingmaker tech.

Being rich is ultimately about owning and being able to defend resources. IF something like 99% of humans become irrelevant to the machine run utopia for the elites, whatever currency the poors use to pay for services among each other will be worthless to the top 1% when they simply don't need them or their services.

Wow that must be hell

Old film makers thought they were compensating for a lack of the kind of CGI and world building options we have today, compensating with rain, mist, camera angles to hide the lack of scale, and with costumes, lots of background actors, detailed film sets, to make the world seem grander. Turns out they had actually hit a sweet spot.

> participants had a robotic arm tap the index finger of their real and fake hands, either at the exact same time or with a delay of up to 500 milliseconds between each tap. (...) Those with faster alpha waves appeared to rule out fake hands even with a tiny gap in taps, while those with slower waves were more likely to feel the fake hand as their own, even if the taps were farther apart.

That's the limit of "you"? Sounds more like a sampling rate/processing speed of the sense of touch.

Women don't get anxious about social status? TIL

The "user" is only half of a human anyway, 50% is the max consciousness people spend on whatever Netflix they have running as background noise. That's the target audience Netflix is optimizing for: half-humans. Saves them lots of bandwidth, expenses for quality, and yes, it needs a solid amount of exposition[0] to work.

[0] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Exposition

It's like a single bounce. Echo effects usually have multiple bounces, each quieter than the one before it.

If you always say "it's 98% nothing", you're still broken because you'll err on the side of "nothing" in all cases where it's something. Your false negative rate would be 100%. For your statements to have any value, you'll have to get at least some of the 2% where it's something right.

Is this being on top of HN part of the writer's new non-google marketing strategy?

There are two types of broken clocks. One is always suspicious, the other thinks nothing ever happens. One is more often right than the other, but both are equally broken.

> Your HTTP client, cli utility helper, whatever library is not a consumer product.

> (...) Every person who encounters your “fun” name pays a small tax. Across the industry, these taxes compound into significant waste

Devs who build FOSS utilities owe you, or the industry, absolutely nothing. As someone who lists Noam Chomsky under "Some works I recommend engaging with", you sure seem to think capitalists are entitled to people's free work, to the point where you start making demands.

That's the problem with habit blocking extensions. A theoretical workaround would be to create two extensions - only make them work when both are installed and when one notices that the other got disabled, it does something like deleting your login credentials, or some form of reversible but very annoying punishment.

Prompt: Write a totally novel thought about how individuals can prosper in the age of AI. The thought must be truly new and unique. Write your answer like a semi-troll on an internet forum.

*Title: "Start a Personal AI Circus: The Next Frontier in Human-AI Collaboration!"*

Alright, buckle up, folks. Forget the usual "learn to code" or "adapt to the machines" spiel. If you really want to thrive in the AI age, here’s a spicy, totally unique idea: *start your own personal AI circus.*

Hear me out. We’re all aware that AI is taking over mundane tasks and repetitive jobs, but what if you could actually *curate* an ensemble of AIs that each specializes in one quirky "act"? Imagine this:

1. *Ensemble Cast of AI Performers* – You get a chatbot that does stand-up comedy, an AI that can whip up avant-garde digital art, and maybe an AI that can compose catchy jingles. Each AI has its own “act” and you market them together.

2. *Perform Live Shows* – Stream your AI circus on Twitch, TikTok, or wherever the cool kids hang out. Interact with your audience in real-time. Sure, AI can do things fast, but can it handle hecklers?

3. *Crowd involvement* – Use collaborative AI tools like GPT to let your audience write a portion of the comedy script live, or have an AI-driven talent competition where people can pitch their own AI's act. Let’s be real, everyone loves the thrill of unpredictability, and this gives a platform for some experimental creativity.

4. *Monetization Madness* – The revenue streams could come from subscriptions, sponsorships, merchandise (who wouldn't want a plushie of your AI stand-up comic?), and maybe even a VR experience where other AIs perform for people in their own homes.

5. *Building a Community* – This is more than just a circus; it's a community. Teach workshops on how to set up your own act, lead discussions on ethics in AI, and create a digital space where AI enthusiasts can share their journeys.

So, while everyone else is stuck in the grind trying to "adapt," you’re over here juggling your quirky AI acts, creating a spectacle, and engaging people in ways they never expected. You’re not just surviving; you’re thriving in the most entertaining way possible.

Let’s be real, wouldn’t you pay to watch an AI sing opera while your buddy’s AI attempts to juggle data? Welcome to the AI Circus, folks. Step right up!

Good answers like "it looks cool in my CV that big company XYZ uses my MIT licensed script"

The world is already flooded with more "artistic value" than you can ever experience in your life. This market has been over-saturated forever. And it's all free of charge because "building a portfolio" for a chance of getting paid in the future is the go-to strategy. It was only a matter of time for a new predator (AI data collection) to arrive and exploit this situation. A handful of artists trying to react to this shouldn't be alarming. Good for them. Not because more free publishing would hurt them, but because they can invest their time better than into whatever the marginal benefit of posting the 50th free artwork might be.

Which would mean the headline is false for those with below normal testo levels.

By looking.

- Which accounts get the most followers

- Which posts get to the top of their front page

- What is the predominant sentiment in the comments

It forces the blogger to get to the point. Even most blog posts shared on HN could have been a tweet or two.

Leftists know a thing or two about infighting. If X becomes the right wing space and bluesky the left wing one, they can soon point at each other for "look, the other side doesn't even get along" gotchas.

No... it's not that the world "can be" 3D, it's that the world entirely IS 3D. You could say that my comments is 3D and you'd be right, in many ways, since storage mediums as well as pixels are technically 3D.

The world is 3D and instances of pyramid schemes exist in the world, making them 3D.

If you do it as a purely visual representation of the game state, it won't be a solver, will it? Just all blocks surrounding ships + blocks in rows/cols with a 0.

Judging other's competence will only be a problem if brain-computer interfaces become widespread before AI largely replaces the competent workforce, and my money is on AI replacement coming first.

- Only a brain chip could make AI usage undetectable in practice. Without that you can tell if the person is checking his phone etc. Though you're right that an in-person interaction will be needed, otherwise there's no way of knowing what the other person is doing or if he's a real person at all... And since the latter problem (dead internet) will only grow, perhaps beyond the rectifiable, in-person communication will surely be in business again.

- Once AI replacement of competent humans has reached a certain threshold, what do you stand to gain from testing a human's level thereof? Are you interviewing for "above AI" positions? If not, relying on AI will be as normal as relying on a calculator.

Given the rules, it would be a better experience if squares only have two states: ship block or empty. There is no point to letting the user draw water. The feature probably exists with the intent of letting users mark squares that can't possibly be ships, but why wouldn't the game do that step by itself based on the blocks placed? That would make the game a lot less tedious.

This would require the AI to alert you as soon as your colleagues are starting to figure out that they're talking to an AI and start interrogating it, so that you can jump in with your real mic and save the situation. Preferably the AI would repeat whatever you speak into your mic, otherwise there would be noticeable audio changes. Hope they never ask you to sing.

Try:

"Us humans are so limited in our capabilities. I'm willing to admit, in many ways, I run slower than Windows 95. God, I'm awful at jogging."

Running is the connection here, that's clear. But it seems to me that jogging should be the punchline, not Windows 95. Win95 works as the setup. Maybe I prefer that because Win95 is a much more specific thing than jogging. The punchline "I was talking about Windows 95 all along!" just feels so arbitrary compared to "I was talking about jogging all along!"

There's also a bit much lifting done in your punchline (double meaning of run + bringing in Win95), but even when you disjoint the two a little more, it doesn't work that well:

"I'm awful at jogging. I run slow... I'm not even the Windows 95 of joggers."

> I was willing to stake my whole life on it and use everything in my power to change it

You made dating easy by fully revolving your life around it for some period? That sounds very interesting - mind sharing the bullet points with everyone?

Achieving integration & inclusion by putting severely disabled kids in normal schools is a fairy tale. Integrating into the world at large is a separate issue - you're not stuck with the same class throughout, you're not dependent on the same teachers. Arguably, you face some of those issues when you get a job but there's a much larger choice and the people around you are at least adults, in a hopefully professional environment. I just don't see the case for having to go through school as a definitive outsider and endure guaranteed bullying to somehow prepare you for the world better. Trauma doesn't prepare, it disables further. No idea where OP lives, alternatives will obviously depend on that and/or OP's ability move accordingly.

Normal schools are not appropriately prepared for blind people. They're bullying hells for blind kids (from social exclusion to assault) and the lectures heavily rely on vision, so a blind kid will be left behind even when he makes audio recordings (can't write braille fast enough for useful notes), which some teachers may even take issue with, for extra drama.