tony_cannistra

Invest in your actual network. It makes ignoring recruiters extremely easy. I try to remind myself of this.

In one case I found, the USGS point for the spring is on public land, but the actual spring is on a private inholding. This, of course, led to an error that caused the site to list it as "public."

I found several of these as well.

Oy. Checked a couple of these I know personally. You'll find yourself in a world of trespassing if you use this.

undoubtedly a feat of signal processing - but geez, the privacy implications are a bit unsettling. Not like we didn't have this problem with BLE already, though.

What is your rationale for advocating for caution here?

Don't forget software engineering

I have to say, this guy should teach English to high-schoolers.

somewhat sad to say that if you follow the map link (https://caltopo.com/m/4N7A) there's in fact a trail right next to the "point of inaccessibility" that includes trails + roads.

The path was added to OSM two years ago, which is after the analysis was done. OSM is a moving target!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1255896413

I once made a similar map at work, but for the whole USA. You can view it if you use onX Hunt - called the "Roadless" layer under "Roads Trails & Rec."

This is a common misconception. Topical tretinoin has been shown to have no effect on the fetus. Oral tretinoins (like isotretinoin) have been linked to congenital defects. This is due to the differing rates of absorption and the resulting ability for the retinoid to cross the placenta at higher concentrations.

With that said, folks who are pregnant are discouraged from using any retinoids out of an abundance of caution.

Same here. I always marvel at this. These recollections can even be years later, and the memory of the place in which I heard the remembered thing is vivid.

This is the way.

Thanks for writing it, I enjoyed the perspective. I found it by way of Michael Sacasas' post: https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/feeding-on-illusi...

Look, really not trying to get into the weeds here, but since we're there: I respect your take that nothing in this article is novel, though I disagree with it.

My point wasn't as much about that as it was the lack of good faith engagement and curiosity.

Not interesting? Let the damn thing die on /new.

TFA raises several points I hadn't heard before. Here's one.

The artifacts we produce define our culture. If we allow LLMs to produce our work, our culture represents that which they understand. But LLMs can't be trained on the entirety of the human experience. "How dare we abandon so many countless traditions and people and ideas and nuances, simply because they are under­represented in the training data?"

I just feel like that's not performative in the way you're insinuating. That feels like a take to me. Respectful engagement is what I expected here.

I'm the op on this one (not the author). Gotta say, I had higher hopes for the community here.

Isn't it worthwhile to examine our patterns of thinking and work? Shouldn't alternative perspectives such as these spark conversation, rather than sly jibes?

HN grew from curiosity and good-faith. Y'all are not showing up.

I believe we before we had "virtue signaling" we called it "sharing opinions"

This is good. The number of times I've downloaded and re-converted these files...too many to count.

Yeah. This is why we have connection pooling.

"spontaneous movements of increasing complexity" is a great way to say "dancing"

I've also tried this. Very interesting, but must be used sparingly in my experience. Hiking is a place where before I used to go to think, or not think at all. Prompting an AI while doing so can feel very bad if really what I'm looking for is some disconnection or quiet thinking time.

Vending machines can't be used by thousands of people from differing tax jurisdictions at once

It's America. We have mythology.

You haven't been to <city>

> Claude Mythos Preview is, on essentially every dimension we can measure, the best-aligned model that we have released to date by a significant margin. We believe that it does not have any significant coherent misaligned goals, and its character traits in typical conversations closely follow the goals we laid out in our constitution. Even so, we believe that it likely poses the greatest alignment-related risk of any model we have released to date. How can these claims all be true at once? Consider the ways in which a careful, seasoned mountaineering guide might put their clients in greater danger than a novice guide, even if that novice guide is more careless: The seasoned guide’s increased skill means that they’ll be hired to lead more difficult climbs, and can also bring their clients to the most dangerous and remote parts of those climbs. These increases in scope and capability can more than cancel out an increase in caution.

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/53566bf5440a10affd749724787c89...

I agree with all that. Maybe the word isn't "blame," then. Surely there must be some code, perhaps moral or ethical, but ideally more rigorously enforcible, which ought to prevent the development of intentionally deceiving tools. Sure you could say this about all software, but that which can cause actual physical harm ought to be held to a higher standard.

Completely infuriating, but more of a commentary on the sad state of incompetent power-hungry law enforcement with tools they don't know how to use than the tools themselves.

Though, the question remains: are the tools built in such a way as to deceive the user into a false sense of trust or certainty?

_Some_ of the blame lies on the UX here. It must.

Not much of a historian, I see.

Idk, depends. Is going to office-hours in order to pass an exam "doing the thing?" Help seems fine.