noobermin

The opening paragraph bothers me greatly. "multiply a gaussian and a power law, the power law dominates." They literally are distributions of different variables, why would you "multiply" two different distributions that exist on different domains!? The example they're using as an opening is very wrong, it makes no sense and makes the author sound incompetent.

Even if I get the point they're trying to make (if I try hard to find it), the very fact that they don't even know how mathematics in the "mathematical" part of their opening does not inspire confidence in the rest of the essay. It's very hard for me to move past the opening after the very first few lines!

Perhaps this is just because I'm a scientist, I'm surprised no one is picking at this because I feel insane reading this and this not being the first nitpick at the top of every comment. The correct way you're represent this (dist of "life outcomes", whatever that means) is that it would be a 2D histogram with IQ and wealth on the different axes. But this is not "multiply the two" wherein "one would dominate".

This is so funny. The consultants are having their ai agents tell your boss the same thing about you, but you're different, you're bright. I bet chat told you that too.

Europeans are so blind to how they are essentially on the same path as the US, the US just got there first.

The context is that this is in response to California in the US potentially passing a law that requires age verification on the operating system level.

Like 1 year ago, wallstreet bros were being interviewed saying they decided all the green pledges and all that was woke from the pre-trump 2 era, and I haven't heard anything at all about climate change really from any world leader in the last few years. I guess once again, people have their coming to jesus moment when it's far too late.

You think? I will get banned from HN if I bring up that these models are fundamentally theft but we just don't put them in jail because they had the foresight to bribe the trump admin like everyone else who wants favor did.

People are you. You can make the change.

Even the author eventually admits the problem is fundamentally academic funding and the stupid publishing culture we have. I wonder if the author had the courage to actually expound upon that as opposed to leaving it as a triffling mention at the end if it would have been published as a cute little op-ed in science in the first place.

So, I'm no professor, but as an ten year post-doc (unfortunately) I can say that most university groups benefit from both types. Again, the problem fundamentally is funding and the wrong incentives, as it always has been from before I entered grad school till now.

To be honest, given the issues with the NHS, the UK isn't the best example to use for a "universal healthcare" system these days.

That is NOT the line for doxxing at all, I don't know why you hang your argument on that aspect. Even institutions that care about secrecy like governments state that documents that aggregate ostensibly public information can raise the classification level of a document above being non-classified. The reasons for this are obvious, essentially aggregated information can lead one to draw conclusions that otherwise are not obvious. That is akin to what the original article by Gyrovague does.

I love this article. "btw don't do PRs, they're dead! (source: me)"...alright buddy.

I understand being mad but no, unfortunately, despite me knowing humans are human and they get angry at times, this response does still leave a bitter taste in the mouth and many people will perceive it that way. Changing the content of the archived pages is the worst thing they've done honestly. The "3 Hz DDoS" is funny perhaps but then if it's so harmless, then why even bother? But regardless, tampering with the archives, that is, tainting the content that people appreciate you for won't sit well with people.

I don't know, I feel like everyone loses here.

Did you read the article? They dug deep, they didn't just do a google search and leave it at that. They drew links between deleted posts and defunct accounts, they compared profile pictures of anonymous profiles.

I'm not defending the archive.today webmaster but it's unfortunately understandable they are angry. Saying what the blogger did was merely point out public information is a gross oversimplification.

See my comment below. The Guardian piece states the images are flagged to the government, hopefully once to reduce the onerousness of it, by the victim.

I had to google a bit, but this Guardian article[1] goes into a lot more detail than the Register piece here. I was of the opinion that this sounds too onerous and ill-defined when I first read the Register piece especially with censorship on the rise in Europe recently, but the Guardian piece made me side more with this particular policy. It doesn't sound as broad as the Register piece puts it, it sounds like it's specifically for revenge porn and generating deep fake porn non-consensually, not any "intimate image" which I agree is far too broad. Albeit, of all governments, I'd suspect especially the current UK government is to be amongst the most likely to say expand these powers to speech they don't like or general pornography one day, etc, it doesn't sound like this specific policy is broad yet according to the Guardian article. The Register piece is using "intimate image" as a euphemism I think whereas the intent of the policy is a bit more defined and specific.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/18/tech-firms-m...

I hate to be the one to point this out but really, in 10 years, how many rust ports will face the same fate?

I think the only thing you're wrong about is modern China is a lot more about face which also is part of Singapore's psyche but nowhere near as much. While there might be some book-cooking, it's nowhere near as bad as the blatant kpi fudging that provincial governments do in China. The CCP also is far more authoritarian than (yes) even the PAP. You do not have random ministers getting disappeared after they fall out of political favour with Xi Jingping.

There are elections but a combination of gerrymandering and honestly just good governance by the ruling party has kept them in power. People genuinely like the PAP. To the extent people vote for opposition candidates, most people would readily admit they do so only to send a message to the PAP. Most Singaporeans do not sincerely want to be ruled by anyone else yet.

Unionisation in Singapore is very different than the rest of the world. There is one very large union (the National Trades Union Congress, NTUC) but it mostly works with the government and the PAP and has a bit of a revolving door with some PAP MPs serving as leadership in NTUC. Wildcat strikes are illegal, and striking is generally not allowed. I think the last sanctioned strike by NTUC was in the 80s. The union does still generally represent workers in disputes between employers and the government and does other work on behalf of workers (trainings, some welfare, it runs the largest grocery chain that at least theoretically is supposed to be a social enterprise and a cooperative), so most members I think accept the arrangement, for what it's worth.

Close to a true perspective, especially if you came as one of those suits. There is soul in singapore, it's just actively co-opted by the govment or actively suppressed. You have to actually live here to see it and have friends who are not expats or mainland chinese (which is hard I think for most foreigners who come), it definitely isn't the same as the soul that you see in america or europe, I guess. The work life (a bit more chill than Japan or Korea but still harsh like the asian norm) doesn't help.

This article is so strange. It's interesting, but all he seems to care about is what right-wingers think. Who cares what they think? I guess that's all to whom Tyler Cowen wishes to appeal.

Regarding just the headline, at this point it's not really about immigration, this has evolved into a soft civil conflict being waged for political reasons. The two people who have been killed so far were themselves citizens and at best were political dissidents. They were not themselves subject to detainment due to immigration status.

I've considered no longer uploading work I do to GitHub.

Until you want a feature that the software doesn't have.

I hear you about damning shitty code which the web industry as a whole is quite responsible for, but I don't see how them dying outright is better.

There is an industry wide biting the hand that feeds them going on. It would be nice for people to realise that's what's happening.

The moving of the goal posts is a lot here. Measuring sensitivity only is still a useful thing and at least aids radiologists in their decision to use this model specifically and how to base their reliance on it. Also, why does every study have to compare all humans across human history to some particular model?

My wife has tried to use a flip phone just for nostalgia's sake and she has a newer phone that supports android 14 (technically android go 14) and thus should work with most basic apps. However, one of her banking apps refuses to work claiming an app is screensharing (the POSB bank app thankfully identifies it as the "android system" app.) likely what is occuring I think is the second screen is drawn using some sort of thing that is reported as screen sharing, that POSB thinks could be malware.

Of course, asking POSB for help has lead to nothing being done. By and large the biggest threat to people finance wise in singapore isn't malware but are scams (what is called "pig butchering" in America is rampant here) whilst malware is always a threat sometimes I feel like just refusing to function is problem due to overzealous viligiance to a low probability threat.

So I have a position that I don't think you'll like. I feel like making money is a means to a better life. Generally, we as a society should seek value creation that actually improves society and increases our productivity. If all you want to do is basically trick rich people out of their money, I don't think that is the world I want to live in.

Yes this is an argument from morality fundamentally. I guess I want to live in a society that rewards being productive and making others better. Not essentially theft a step or two removed.

It's why these people love AI so much. Less of a competition to worry about.

Man, it's almost as if trump wasn't elected before! I guess an election doesn't count as being held to account in public.