powera

This is a work of fiction about writing fiction, and it is full of "purple prose". Not recommended.

This is indistinguishable from fiction, and also off-topic.

The first sentence: "Some investors in OpenAI, makers of ChatGPT, are exploring legal recourse against the company's board, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Monday, after the directors ousted CEO Sam Altman and sparked a potential mass exodus of employees."

It sure sounds like "Microsoft has a legal department", translated through three layers of PR-speak into a headline with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Yeah, I don't see any argument here. There is just an assumption that "an effective person identification system is bad", and a bunch of words distracting from the fact that they are begging the question.

This sure reads like "troubled young adults lashing out against large institutions because that's where the money is" rather than any legitimate cause for legal action.

Everything is dangerous.

Especially those people who take "everything is dangerous" to mean "we should ban everything".

The single-minded insistence in the article that various news outlets should "link to the video they are citing" is completely wrong. They talked to Hamas directly, they aren't just repeating what they saw on Twitter. (at least some of the outlets should be expected to do so.)

So of course the journalists aren't talking to some random crazy guy.

I accomplish something similar by typing with my eyes closed (or simply looking away from the screen).

And, despite the "you can't edit" marketing, you can use the backspace key for typos. (which is good)

New tech in the server space comes out slower than it used to. Moore's Law has almost dried up.

Fifteen years ago, you could assume that you would have 50% larger hard drives and significantly more FLOPS/watt with each year's new systems. Today, that trend has almost entirely stalled.

In short: servers used to have short life-cycles not because they no longer worked, but because they had so much higher operating expenses (electricity, datacenter floor-space) than newer models. That trend no longer holds; the more relevant question today is "how long will the servers work".

Artists like using Ticketmaster because they can blame Ticketmaster for fees. And, more broadly, blame Ticketmaster for the unavoidable problems that arise because there isn't an unlimited supply of tickets, and artists want to generate (almost) as much revenue as possible from them.

I've seen this tale too many times to believe it. Nine times out of ten, the "asset" will be something that is shady at best. (Especially when it's from a completely new HN account)

Sometimes, discrimination based on age is a good thing.

So long as the law pretends otherwise, there will be stupid court decisions as a result.

Nope, not signing up.

The trend from Google continues to be towards "if you lose your phone with your credentials, you will be unable to log in". And Google refuses to create a scalable system that allows you access to your account by verifying your identity in person.

This is a recipe for disaster. And, possibly, a warning to move off GMail before it gets worse.

If everyone looks at a trade like this as prima facie evidence of insider trading, why are these options even for sale?

It is like a casino, except if you win the jackpot you get arrested. Because we run our economy under the law that requires stock prices to be set by ignorant people.

No, there won't. I must assume he is exaggerating for the clicks.

Based on the tone here, it seems that NIMBY's don't want people building in anyone else's backyard either ...

Sigh, more drama from San Francisco. Theft and homelessness are fine, but if perchance something makes it more difficult for you to drive, it is suddenly a catastrophe.

I didn't like the article. Very long, and very shallow. It seems to take as an axiom that the status-quo of "residuals"-based payments is worth defending at all costs.

Tweet 2 in the thread is "buy my company's product instead".

There is a certain sense that Elon Musk paid $44 billion to do this, so he has every right to do so.

As is so often the case, the Signpost is trying too hard to be clever and sarcastic, and we have a worthless piece as a result.

I would not touch this with a 10-foot pole, and would be likely to reject an investment possibility based solely on this being on the cap table.

It is marketed as being a way to preserve angel-investor equity in the event of an outsized exit.

What it actually does is minimize that equity, in exchange for earlier cash-flow repayments. If the business wants to grow, repaying money at that stage is the worst thing possible.

And as far as an investment in a business that will never grow: it seems less-desirable than simply getting dividends, and the complexity on the cap-table will make an acquisition less desirable.

A riddle: how do you know that an anonymous Reddit post is exaggerated?

Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Nobody should be running their personal website on their cellphone. When I read this type of diatribe, I hesitate to agree with it. Abstract considerations of freedom lose out to "you're going to tell people they should do this, and that is a bad thing".

Elon Musk lies so frequently, I don't believe this is true. I think he is just making up excuses for the news coverage.

The word "breakthrough" tends to imply something more than "we still don't know it's possible; and if it is possible, we are only closer to the next accomplishment because of the linear nature of time rather than any actual progress towards our goals".

There is a massive gap between "a lab which can do fusion once every six months" and "a power plant which can do fusion more than once per second".

And "net energy" is still a bit of an accounting hoax; it's only net energy if you only count some of the inputs.

If anything, this is an acknowledgement that they haven't made any useful breakthrough.

It's proof that one is part of "the in-group".

The fact that it is an extremely stupid word only serves to make it more valuable proof.

Nope. That is discussing "an atom of hydrogen with 1 proton and 3 neutrons". Which kind-of exists, but is too unstable to be meaningful.

The press release says it is a molecule of 4 hydrogen atoms. Neither the press release nor Wikipedia have any further thoughts as to how this is possible.

As always, any press release about "quantum" is fake.

What is "H-4"? How could this be used in solar panels? Did they use quantum computers for anything other than to spice up the press release?

There are no answers.