whywhywouldyou

So to clarify: as long as a worker is hourly, they don't deserve any privacy or respect, and can be surveilled at will. That's pretty incredible.

These look great. I went to order a pair of the tumblers, but the hacker discount code didn't work:

> HACKER discount code isn’t valid for the items in your cart

But everyone here has access to the internet and hopefully some really basic deductive reasoning skills.

Those "incredibly bespoke communities" are almost entirely people posting images of a professional/elaborate project, and then asking for feedback in the form of "hey you guys this is the first thing I've ever made please give me some feedback but go easy on me OK?"

It's a massive circle jerk and echo chamber of regurgitated opinions. So in other words: exactly like the rest of Reddit.

This is a hilariously bad attempt at discrediting the original argument. There's a vast difference between forging a letter and replicating the unique vocal fingerprint of any human being, on demand.

I suppose if we approach the point that we can create robotic clones of anyone, anywhere, that look, sound, and move like anyone on the planet, that will be just like the post office too, right?

Right, and I'm sure their "strict process" is something like "we take it down after you notify us and provide proof that the voice is yours".

Did you read the website at all? It discusses that taking a screenshot or adding any other amount of blur, noise, etc isn't a way to circumvent this method.

No matter how many times I've been late for payments in my life, not ONCE have I ever had a human being call me up and demand payment over the phone. It's always a long series of attempts to collect through the mail.

Let alone calling up and demanding I pay using Zelle...

And people don't question these portrayals? That's the surprising part.

Nothing you said contradicts anything the article said. What are you nitpicking, exactly?

> The atmosphere does not really have an end.

Article clearly doesn't state it has an end. They said 99.9999% is below you. They then say the Karman Line is considered the "official" (IN QUOTES) start of outer space, implying that this is a somewhat arbitrary definition.

> And we do actually use our atmosphere above 100km to "affect motion". We place satellites in LEO well above 100km to assure they will eventually fall to Earth.

The article clearly stated "affecting motion" in relation to aerodynamic flight ("aerodynamic flight is no longer possible"). Wings are useless to generate lift at those altitudes. I wouldn't classify falling to Earth as "aerodynamic flight".

The fact that the artist had nothing in mind makes a lot of sense when looking at the paintings. They appear as meaningless noise, and the only thing it evokes in me is disinterest. Knowing that the mind of the artist was intentionally devoid of emotional or rational content during their creation validates that response. In other words, this is a human doing their best impression of procedurally generated art with a computer. Maybe nice to look at, but ultimately meaningless.

All it takes to be a master is to not use line-by-line tutorials?

What's someone like John Carmack then if not a master? I guess everyone's a master!

So following your response here and your original comment directly comparing ChatGPT to a human with schizophrenia: are schizophrenics non-people? According to you, the bot "literally comes across like a schizophrenic off their meds".

I'm confused. Also, the original article talks a lot about how we can be convinced by actors that they are indeed a totally different person. You might say that actors can change their personality at will to suit their role. Are actors non-people?

I had the same response. And beyond the motivation factor, the second response was, "I suppose I could test it myself, but I'm not uploading a picture of my screen to a strange website"

This isn't a competition. They aren't in a classroom where the professor is asking a trick question. This person wants to hire someone who can spot the bug, understand it, and propose solutions.

Who cares if the candidate comes from a field where this isn't common? That's the point. You want to hire people who would know what to do if they came across it.

It's amazing the amount of hostility here towards a perfectly sensible interview question and process.

This sounds like a reasonable approach, with an explanation on how you personally execute it. The top comment is just a statement, and a very odd one at that, given the context of the original question.

Did last time you check, you saw that Carmack open sourced every single one of his game engines along the way?

So the top comment/advice on HN about how to avoid information overload is to collect a list of information to remind you to stop addictively collecting information.

Sounds about right.

This is the entire basis of the article. Use the word "mathematical" where convenient to sound smart, but never come close to defining the word. Sprinkle in a whole bunch more of these opinions-masquerading-as-facts, and there you have it.

Same thing with the "too bright". Too bright based on what? Too bright for whom? Doesn't matter. Just follow these opin- I mean rules.

I love when a series of opinions is presented as rules. It really lets you know how important the author believes they are!

This was a great experiment. It obviously doesn't rule anything out or confirm anything, but one possibility is that the apps cache this information and only send it out during their regular communication frequency as part of the packet payload.

I'm not sure if there's a way to test for this (or if you tried in your experiment)

What about the data would require an expert to reconstruct? They have the simulated flight path. It's very similar to the final flight path of the real plane.

What's with so many of these comments being flabbergasted that there's a switch in the cockpit that can cause harm to everyone on the plane?

Do you realize you're entrusting two people in the front of the plane with your life as soon as the plane takes off? There are probably DOZENS of switches that if they are flipped maliciously will result in everyone on the plane dying.

Are you also astounded that the pilot controls the plane with a "kill everyone" lever? One that if they push forward for long enough will kill everyone on the plane?

But also, _not_ using the lever during landing would also kill everyone. Wild stuff.

Sometimes this is true. But sometimes the limiting factor really is the student.

In my own experience I've seen fellow students put in less than half the effort I did (I watched them copy homework assignments in groups 30 minutes before class, spend a lot of time trying to track down last years exams, etc etc), and then have the nerve to complain afterwards that the exams were too hard.

At the end of the year, someone will make a generic post on HN asking what my predictions for 2024 are.

And I will again wonder why it made it to the front page of HN.

It's easy to see this behavior when it comes to the flood of gym memberships that coincide with the new year. Everyone simultaneously decides, "THIS is the year I finally get in shape!".

Right. Except by March all of these people are back to sitting on the couch. I'm sure if it were as measurable as gym memberships, we'd see the same thing happen with all resolutions.

This is one of those things that seems interesting/meaningful until you give it more than 10 seconds of thought, and then you realize this is just how life works.

I could whip up an infinite amount of articles explaining how I "Found X through Y degrees of separation", where Y is unexpectedly large. It's trivial to work backwards through your life and reshape everything as a series of coincidences that got you to where you are.

I got my job through 129 degrees of separation! You see, I was born in A, where I went to B school, and met C, who got me interested in D, which led me to discover I had a talent for E, and ... etc etc etc

Noted. I guess in the future I will continue to look for things made in 2003, because this is entirely useless for any actual circuit simulation and/or design.

Looks great if you're trying to impress some of your beginner friends, though.

I'm sure you're correct, as the whole thing reads like "look how smart I am".

1. Extraneous details about satellites not being overhead at night -- as if government spy satellites operate on the same schedule with the same priorities as publicly known satellites.

2. Mentions things like them not scrubbing the EXIF data was a "mistake". How could it be a mistake if this was public information?

3. Says at the end "(this data is all public now)". Making it sound like he made the data public through his top notch sleuthing. It should read "this data was all public a week prior to my analysis".