ppqqrr

If a miraculous new technology that helps individuals grok any conceivable topic has “no economic impact,” you should probably question how you measure of economic impact - perhaps even your very definition of the economy, the nature of human labor and collaboration. Fundamental changes at the base of the hierarchy will always escape the attention of high level managerial class, because the one thing they’re never taught to do is to consider the possibility that their inherited power structure may become irrelevant.

I haven't read the book, but I think "concrete zoos," for humans, is more metaphorical than literal. Humans find comfort in much wider ranges of environment. If it were available, I'm sure many would find spaceships to be comforting environments.

IMO, the problem is that we're at this stage of social development, where capitalism, and the antiquated culture of jobs, management and deadline, is actively incentivized to limit human potential and creativity. Why? Because that's where competition comes from.

i'm not a flaming activist or anything (yet), and i appreciate the benefit of their work, but they really told us we can't pirate anything they make, and then proceeded to pirate everything we made.

i'm not a luddite, or a "hippie". i'm going to keep paying for my GPT-N+1. I just want it in writing that if they can pirate everything, so can you and I. It's only fair.

Anyone know if there’s an audio equivalent of this software?

In my mind, the lowest-hanging fruit is: "tech is now abundant, and great machine farms feed us all." Surprising thing is, most of us are already there - except the media (hand-in-hand with legacy corporations that need scared, docile employees) is incentivized to keep us thinking otherwise by focusing on homelessness and immigration.

They're afraid of the general populace reaching the consensus that "tech is now abundant, and great machine farms feed us all," because that would mean that most of us are free to explore and experiment without being subject to pointless human pyramids (i.e. corps), which represents unknown innovations and disruptions that might threaten said pyramids.

And a LOT of that mass-gaslighting relies on what the internet has become - a Judge Dredd-style Sprawl of a few monolithic power centers, with nothing but millions of noodle shops and nail salons (whose online equivalents would be e-commerce websites and commodity SaaS startups) in between.

Some time ago, the internet had a sensible structural ambition that a child could understand: a singular global network where nobody can stop the individual from adding a new node. That freedom is technically still there, but it's been neutered in every way imaginable. And most who would support that freedom lost heart, like the author here.

What now? I think it's simple - we try again. Go back to the original promise, and see how we can implement it better this time. An accessible, transparent, free network of simple documents and people. The tech is there, and the appetite is there, if you look at the success of products like LinkTree.

In fact, I'm working on building that right now, and I have high confidence in our go-to-market strategy. Email me (check my bio) if this interests you. I'd love to chat.

You're exactly right - tainted, because the contract killer's money becomes clean (laundered) at the expense of the rest of the money.

Now, as to whether everyone who had money in that pool will be found guilty by "Big Bad Government", which I think is what distresses you - the answer is no. There are additional criteria, as the article mentions.

A while ago i had a heated discussion on HN with someone who claimed that any graph where 0 is not the minimum value of all the axes is misleading.

We were talking about a graph that shows global temperature rise due to climate change. They claimed the graph was misleading because the Y axis (temperature) didn't start from 0 (fahrenheit? celsius? fucking kelvin?).

This person also quipped, "maybe if you can't see if with 0 at the bottom, it's not such a significant change?". That put a dent in my faith in humanity for a while. I'm just glad to see us operating at a higher level. I guess 2016-2020 was a different time.

nice try, but your username betrays your dastardly ambitions.

I remember the moment I decided to be a vimmer. I was in my first systems class in college, looking for advice. A senior asked me if I knew how to use vim, and with a few flicks of his wrists, split his screen into halves, quarters. I was sold.

I still wonder about what I encountered in that moment - a kind of honesty and stubbornness to build something true, universal, empowering. The restraint and confidence it takes, then, to present it as a blank canvas for all to build on.

Because vim exists, I know it is possible to build in that spirit; I will always strive to do so myself.

Thanks for your feedback! As I mentioned in the other comment, we've removed the login wall so you can freely try the tool.

And yes - the end result is simple :) but there's more to it than meets the eye. In any case, from what we can tell, there's no other online QR generators offering something like this at the moment... So we wanted to put this out there and see if people find a way to make it useful.

Really appreciate your feedback. I think customizing the auth0 login page is out of our reach at the moment... but we addressed the other parts of your feedback :) you should be able to use the customize page without having to log in.

(we did change the background color of the login page, you're right that the black background didn't fit in with the rest of our website)

We'd love to hear more from you - don't hesitate to reach out directly, my email is in my bio.

Thanks for trying it out! I'd love to hear more - we use auth0's login UX, thought it would be a smooth experience for most. Did you want to try without signing up? I understand the frustration... but we made it work this way so we can store designs under the customer's account, so they can view it later.

False dichotomy; descriptive names can and should be cute, if you're willing to spice them with a bit of analogy and/or irony. Problem is that most corporate programmers lack personality (and punk spirit, tbh), and use names as a way to make their code appear "compliant," (boring) deflecting attention and scrutiny from their work.

Low quality HN post right there. /s

> whether it is really just your body, or whether it is two bodies

Not really. That’s a pseudo-philosophical framing that anti-abortionists prefer, because it hides the real world consequence of their little thought experiment: forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies, and to raise unwanted children.

“One vs two body” is little more than semantics. Fact is, carrying pregnancies and raising the resulting child is the heaviest burden that a citizen can ever carry for the state. The state has no way to adequately compensate the citizen for such service, so instead they offer the freedom of choice. That’s the implicit social contract behind abortion policies; it’s got nothing to do with anyone’s metaphysical interpretation of a pregnant woman’s anatomy.

Sure, they like to have “their money do the work,” but they still have to find (or grow) a system where large capitals can sit and collect interests.

As I’ve said, I express no judgement as to whether any of this is morally objectionable, or good/bad for society in general. You’re arguing with yourself at this point.

Despite my cynical tone, I don’t see inequality as a primary outcome of commerce, either; I do see the increased exchange of goods that the crypto economy brings as a general positive. But it’s almost always been the case that the more commerce happens, the more extreme the gap between the rich and the poor becomes; arguably it’s not always a bad thing, as long as everyone’s getting a piece of the pie. I’m just speculating on why there’s big money rolling into crypto, and there will continue to be.

And yet, our current medium of exchange relies on artificial scarcity as well, controlled by central banks. This is where your average crypto proponent will follow up with their spiel on the benefits of decentralization, but I personally believe decentralization is a distraction, or at best only relevant for those in charge of the supply of the currency. On the demand side, what cryptocurrencies really bring to the table is an alternative, asymmetrical channel for currency and values to move through; and in a capitalist system that naturally skews towards inequality, the more money changes hands, the more likely it is that the next hand to take it will be that of the rich. So as far as the rich are concerned, the incentives to bootstrap the crypto economy and keep it funded well enough to slowly suck up conventional economic activity is already there.

So there’s material differences that supports certain prejudices; big surprise, turns out human societies have been (and still is) working very hard for thousands of years to craft those differences - isolating, separating, enslaving, oppressing, exiling their scapegoat “others”. The question is not whether the differences are real, but whether we can prevent AI from being used to perpetuate those differences. TBH, we don’t stand a chance; we live in a society where most people cannot even wrap their heads around why it shouldn’t perpetuate those differences.

Amphetamine (https://amphetamine.en.softonic.com/mac) solved this for me. I turn it on, with “allow system sleep when display is closed” disabled, and it’ll work with the laptop closed, using only the two connected monitors as display.

White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

“It is possible I already had some presentiment of my future.”

As an avid vaporwave listener, I’d wager that listening to music slowed down / pitched down has a calming psychological effect in general. In other words, 432hz is not some magic number, it’s better because it’s lower.

It’s a three-letter glimpse into what motivated these scientists to write the paper; I think we can acknowledge it and move on without losing sight of scientific rigor.

I’m aware that it’s pretty whack, but my pet argument for reincarnation is this: you used not not exist. Then, at some point in time, you transitioned into existing. When you die, you’ll go back to not existing again (if that’s what you believe). If reincarnation is just a matter of coming into being from non-existence, then the fact that you exist is an evidence that it’s possible. Obviously there’s many holes in this argument (to start with, is every incarnation a probabilistically independent event?), but hey, what good’s freedom of religion if you can’t make up your own mind about things you can’t possibly know right?

Make policing cheaper, more efficient. Continue pressuring with the ongoing cultural/political shift, cheaper policing adds weight to the argument that we don’t need as many police officers. Less officers, less assholes. If that’s clear enough for you, I’d like to add that I do not owe it to you to come up with a perfectly viable policy to solve policing in the US. You may feel that acting the entitled critic without putting your own ideas on the table gives you an air of superiority, but in the long term, you’ll find that people are increasingly less willing to engage with you in debates.

I don’t believe that people will leave the police force voluntarily, either. But I do think that, now that the idea of sizing down the police force is politically viable, more efficient policing will put extra weight behind the idea by making it harder to justify oversized personnel budgets. Obviously, if we fail to follow through with down-sizing, we run the risk of ending up with a more powerful police, no less corrupt. Well, I think we just need to take that risk and try - most meaningful social achievements require balancing two or more levers at the same time.

No, I’m not. I mean, it’s just words written on the internet, the whole thing could be made up, right? My opinion is that the police as an institution needs technology to keep up with the world, especially if we want a smaller police force with better training, higher qualifications and accountability. Sensible regulations must be passed and enforced in order to minimize the risk of abuse, which is really where I think the ball is being dropped here. Without governance, corporations bear the burden of figuring out the sensible thing, and people are (rightly) suspicious of their judgement.

The point of contention is how amazon and local police interact with each other, specifically what constraints amazon has on its data sharing with local police. Wife of an HN poster or not, testimony from someone who directly works with those constraints on a daily basis should matter, I believe.