rl3

YouTube has turned into a trash spigot of AI-generated garbage, especially the ads. Platforms used to care about their advertisers meeting some type of minimum quality bar. It's just trashy.

To be fair, said trashiness started prior to AI when video thumbnails began competing in this race to the bottom on who could be the best clickbait.

If there's ever an Idiocracy sequel, they won't need any computer graphics; the actors just browsing a live computer on YouTube's main page should suffice.

>I find it odd to completely disavow someone because you don’t agree 100% with their politics.

"politics":

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/update-lives-lost-usaid-cuts

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

It's almost like there's enough people in the world that we can focus on and tackle multiple problems at once.

>And again, it's not the doctors fault that they are incompetent.

I don't know how you expect people to take you seriously, but good luck.

>Are you joking?

No. The human body actually isn't a 737.

>This statement you made here is manipulative. You know what I mean by that comparison. Don’t try to spin it like I'm not talking about human lives.

Let me spell it out then: The mechanisms by which a human body and a 737 work are so vastly different that one may as well be alien to the other. It's quite an apples and oranges comparison.

Yeah, you can draw parallels in some areas but I'd say on the whole the analogy isn't exactly apt. That said, I'll indulge:

Imagine if every 737 was a few orders of magnitude more complex, and also so different to the point that no plane even looked or functioned the same. Then, imagine we didn't fully understand how they worked.

Point being: Medicine is fuzzy because the human body is fuzzy and imprecise. Everybody's a little different. Contrast to aviation, which is very much an exact science and engineering discipline at this point.

Medicine isn't engineering. Treating patients isn't the same as the design and manufacture of aircraft.

That of course doesn't excuse shitty healthcare systems that can clearly do better when stats indicate there's preventable adverse outcomes happening. I just don't think laying the blame at the feet of doctors somehow being too stupid to problem solve is helpful when there's a larger system that's preventing them from doing their best work for their patients. If anything that narrative is counterproductive.

>Are you yourself a doctor?

Nope, just a layperson who knows they're a layperson.

That's the crux of it. My only point was it's nothing intrinsic to training or ability; they're often hamstrung by the larger system.

>When the person your responding to said that what you wasn’t backed up by facts I’m going to tell you straight up that, that statement was utter bullshit.

The person you just replied to here isn't the same person I replied to.

>You followed up a sweeping generalization with a sweeping generalization and a touch of bias.

As opposed to what, proving that GPs are highly trained, not inherently inferior to other types of physicians, and regularly conduct complex problem solving?

Heck, while I'm at it I may as well attempt to prove the sky is blue.

>I imagine the issue with problem solving more lays in the system doctors are stuck in and the complete lack of time they have to spend on patients.

Bingo.

>Is this statement supported by facts?

Yeah, the main fact here is called medical school.[0]

>Read that fact. 800,000 deaths from misdiagnosis a year is pretty pathetic. And this is just deaths.

Okay, and if that somehow flows from GPs (but not specialists!) being uniquely poor at problem solving relative to all other types of physicians—irrespective of wider issues inherent in the U.S. healthcare system—then I stand corrected.

>135x better survival rate of getting on a 737 max

The human body isn't a 737.

>I will say this GPs are in general not very competent. They are about as competent and trust worthy as a car mechanic.

Ignorant.

[0] https://medstudenthandbook.hms.harvard.edu/md-program-object...

That's a sweeping generalization unsupported by facts.

In reality you'll find the vast majority of GPs are highly intelligent and quite good at problem solving.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say their training is so intensive and expansive that laypeople who make such comments are profoundly lacking in awareness on the topic.

Physicians are still human, so like anything there's of course bad ones, specialists included. There's also healthcare systems with various degrees of dysfunction and incentives that don't necessarily align with the patient.

None of that means GPs are somehow less competent at solving problems; not only is it an insult but it's ridiculous on the face of it.

>Microsoft would be such an easy fix to get back on the right path, ...

Why treat workers right, properly resource teams, and build quality stuff on a roadmap that looks beyond the next quarter when you can just treat your workers, product and customers as if they're all disposable trash.

Basically the standard Fortune 500 playbook with few exceptions.

>...but Nadella is not going to do that, and nobody is going to make you or me the CEO.

That's a good thing. When they eventually fail completely and sell their assets, it'll be a source of cheap datacenters for the competition—at least assuming demand eventually chills out.

On that note, I've heard the LTSC version of Windows 11 isn't as horrible.

In GP's defense:

>>It might be the beer talking, ...

>"Don't Be Evil"

That ship sailed a long time ago. It then proceeded to sink, ending up a haunted wreck that we might see in a new Pirates of the Caribbean film.

Problem is, Captain Jack Sparrow these days isn't what he used to be either.

>Why are they behaving like this since last year (trying very hard to burn themselves to the ground)

Since last year? Burning themselves into the ground has been their M.O. for the last decade and a half, at least.

I'd argue enshitification started in earnest with Windows 8.

AI just enables them to speed up the process dramatically.

Additional context:

https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/20260101_ccpa_statute.pd...

https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/ccpa_statute_eff_2026010...

https://cppa.ca.gov/data_broker_registry/

https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/

Here's hoping other states follow suit.

>The problem with that approach is that it will absolutely nuke your website's SEO. So fuzzycanary also checks user agents and won't show the links to legitimate search engines, so Google and Bing won't see them.

Those legitimate search engines will then totally feed much of what they scrape into AI. Granted, last I checked they're at least well-behaved crawlers.

I kind of like this idea sans SEO carve-out for the scenario where one just wants to link their blog around to friends without having to worry about it getting popular, and it reduces the chances identity thieves or other malicious actors would target it.

After the initial trial of humanoid robots resulted in too many fatalities owing to falls, it was decided to instead acquire industrial 6-DoF robotic armatures and place them atop treaded, omnidirectional-pivot cargo transport systems intended for warehouse use.

The LiDAR option on the armature was eschewed due to cost in favor of an in-house, camera-based vision model that has thus far reduced the number of safety incidents that later result in amputation (knock on plywood) while increasing manufacturing output.

Pressure vessel construction still remains a point of concern on account of recent trends which indicate a rise in errant armature misfires when gripping tools that facilitate the application of nails and staples to the plywood superstructure.

I disagree. Traditional underwater human habitats are overengineered and expensive.

By using plywood in conjunction with other off-the-shelf parts and materials, we can change this equation to deliver more value while dramatically reducing costs.

If, due to unforeseen circumstances the habitat occupant can no longer sustain life, they're automatically entombed inside a makeshift plywood coffin—no costly recovery operations required. Logitech wireless game controller sold separately.

You're right, autonomous vehicles kill far less animals than humans and therefore when they do end up unfortunately killing animals, it's perfectly justified because in aggregate it's actually safer.

See, most people don't have the intellectual capacity to understand this fact. Fortunately, you and I understand. We get it.

Well, except for the fact that it happening in the first place is basically the result of engineering decisions best described as low-caliber dogshit. But, don't tell Kit Kat their death was perfectly preventable. It'd ruin the mystique of the sacrifice being for the greater good or some such.

>>Even if they aren't completely under the vehicle ...

>What even is this reply?

I mean if you take a look at GP's username, it's arguably just tastefully subtle satire.

>I believe Bryan is a well known em dash addict

I was hoping he'd make the leaderboard, but perhaps the addiction took proper hold in more recent years:

https://www.gally.net/miscellaneous/hn-em-dash-user-leaderbo...

https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=bcantrill

No doubt his em dashes are legit, of course.

Never underestimate stupid, especially for that sector.

>It’s still a red herring.

I don't think so. Not if it's easily within their engineering capabilities to make scenarios like this much safer or even completely safe.

Historically there's always been frequent accidents involving low speed fatalities of pets and children in similar fashion to this that tend to happen in driveways, so the fact the scenario hasn't been accounted for adequately is a little shocking.

>The only question is whether Waymo is less dangerous than humans on average, not whether Waymo can achieve a flawless track record.

Even if it's vastly safer than humans on average already, if this particular area is less safe than humans, then that warrants attention.

I tend to agree with your take.

Surely an undercarriage sensor array can be done on the cheap (engineering and retrofits aside) due to the required sensing distance being quite short.

Off the top of my head, it sounds like an area where ultrasonics and cameras would actually excel at (as opposed to replacing LIDAR for core functionality, which doesn't work very well as we've found out).

End of the day it's way cheaper than lawsuits.

Unrealistically small? The example given was a child retrieving a ball. Even if they aren't completely under the vehicle as in the cat's case, the risk remains real nonetheless. It could've been a typical 7-year-old's head or arms under that rear tire instead.

Sorry Ms. Lovejoy, but I fail to see the harm in singling out Waymo here. It's an automated vehicle that purports to be intelligent, so when it kills a pet in a fashion that's plainly preventable, and elements of that scenario can translate to human children, it seems worthy of discussion.

>If you watch the video, the cat is unfortunate, but not particularly concerning.

I suspect you'd feel different if it was your cat.

>It's very unlikely that a human would do any better (though, I'd welcome Waymo adding more sensors to the undercarriage to prevent this in the future).

Except the human driver would've almost certainly communicated with the woman trying to collect the cat. I'm surprised they don't have a robust undercarriage array given the hypothetical risk to children, even adults.

Guess folks here don't like cats.

What's terrifying is it could've just as easily been a child that was playing and trying to retrieve a ball, thinking the car's parked because there's no driver.

>... because there has never been a Waymo fatality

I'm afraid poor Kit Kat would disagree:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/05/us/waymo-kit-kat-san-fran...