EST is Eastern Standard Time. Most of Europe is on CET or CEST depending on time of year. (Somewhat confusingly, the 'S' in that case refers to Summer rather than Standard!)
If we assume that the ideal time for 8 months of the year is DST and for 4 months is standard, but we want to eliminate the switch, then permanent DST gives you only 4 months out of the ideal timezone rather than 8.
I'm really curious how people will feel about it after experiencing a year of continuous PDT. I expect I'll personally like it, but the polling will be interesting for sure.
In the winter I can see arguments both ways (though I'm personally in the evening light is better camp). But in the summer, it already gets light earlier than almost anyone would want to be awake. An extra hour of sunlight at 4am is little benefit to anyone, and likely just makes it harder to sleep. Light evenings in the summer are wonderful though. I think part of the health argument against DST is that those light evenings make it harder to get to sleep at night, which is fair, but I still wouldn't want to give them up!
Why does the regular voting system fail here? Are there just too many Show HNs for people to process the new ones, so the good ones get lost in the noise?
I like to think the machines actually were using them for processing power, and the humans themselves just misunderstood (or oversimplified for Neo) what was actually going on.
The name is extremely off-putting, but I can see how they would want to be diplomatic toward the administration in using their chosen name. Save the push-back for where it really matters.
If they had access to them in Ukraine, both sides would already be using them I expect. Right now jamming of drones is a huge obstacle. One way it's dealt with is to run literal wired drones with massive spools of cable strung out behind them. A fully autonomous drone would be a significant advantage in this environment.
I'm not making a values judgment here, just saying that they will absolutely be used in war as soon as it's feasible to do so. The only exception I could see is if the world managed to come together and sign a treaty explicitly banning the use of autonomous weapons, but it's hard for me to see that happening in the near future.
Edit: come to think of it, you could argue a landmine is a fully autonomous weapon already.
> When (s)he has found an overview page which (s)he feels ought to refer to the new data, (s)he can ask the author of that document (who ought to have signed it with a link to his or her mail address) to put in a link.
> By the way, it would be easy in principle for a third party to run over these trees and make indexes of what they find. Its just that noone has done it as far as I know
The one that always gets me is how they're insistent on giving 17-step instructions to any given problem, even when each step is conditional and requires feedback. So in practice you need to do the first step, then report the results, and have it adapt, at which point it will repeat steps 2-16. IME it's almost impossible to reliably prevent it from doing this, however you ask, at least without severely degrading the value of the response.
Yes and no. The hallucination rate shown there is the percentage of time the model answers incorrectly when it should have instead admitted to not knowing the answer. Most models score very poorly on this, with a few exceptions, because they nearly always try to answer. It's true that 3.0 is no better than others on this. By given that it does know the correct answers much more often than eg. GPT 5.2, it does in fact give hallucinated answers much less often.
In short, its hallucination rate as a percentage of unknown answers is no better than most models, but its hallucination rate as a percentage of total answers in indeed better.
I can only speak to my own experience, but for the past couple of months I've been duplicating prompts across both for high value tasks, and that has been my consistent finding.
In my experience Gemini 3.0 pro is noticeably better than chatgpt 5.2 for non-coding tasks. The latter gives me blatantly wrong information all the time, the former very rarely.
It certainly wasn't in the past few weeks, but I've been hearing about how good it's gotten for years. Certainly not planning to pay to find out if it's true now, but I'll give it another try next free trial!
Based on the self driving trials in my Model Y, I find it terrifying that anyone trusts it to drive them around. It required multiple interventions in a single 10-minute drive last time I tried it.
Would've been, once. These days I assume bentcorner asked their favourite LLM to generate a poem parodying Ozymandias about once-popular youtube videos.
I think you're missing their point. The question you're replying to is, how do we know that this made up content is a hallucination. Ie., as opposed to being made up by a human. I think it's fairly obvious via Occam's Razor, but still, they're not claiming the quotes could be legit.
I don't think the threat is to leave for 2 years then come back. He just doesn't want to commit to leaving forever. Who knows if in a decade it'll be Android with the shitty keyboard (or Apple will have the better Direct Brain Interface, or whatever). Most likely though, if someone switches ecosystems for 2+ years, they're going to get used to the new one and stay there.
I'm curious why my experience with Windows 11 is so different from what I regularly read. It was some years ago now, so I don't remember exactly what configuration steps I went through, but presumably I turned off ads when I first installed. And so, I don't get ads. I don't recall ever seeing an ad embedded in Windows. Are people talking about Edge (which I don't use) or inside the Microsoft Store (which I very rarely use, but I presume does have sponsored apps or whatever)? Or is this mostly people who don't use Windows, repeating what others have said? Or are these ads targeted at users who aren't me?