xracy

It's an authorial expectation that saves everyone from having to search every acronym you use.

Can I solve it by searching? Yes. Is it faster for the author to type it out once or for the reading public to have to search it up? I don't think that time matches up even if the # of people is "me", but it certainly isn't less time than it takes 2 people to search.

I feel like I am asking for the bare minimum and everyone on this sight thinks I am asking for the moon.

This is such entry-level communication/writing skills I am surprised the ai doesn't do it for you...

Obligatory https://xkcd.com/169/

I didn't say I don't know what Continuous Integration was. I said I didn't know what "CI" stood for.

Cannot stress enough, this is like, basic communication/writing that they teach in elementary school.

But I'm so happy you're able to get off on your feelings of superiority that you always automatically know what those two letters stand for. I hope that translates to meaningful happiness and fulfillment in your life.

It's wild to me that people think asking for

"Continuous Integration (CI)"

in the first line of a paragraph of a long article is "going out of your way". It used to be the standard expectation for using shorthand.

I know what a CD (Compact Disk) is.

(Continuous Integration, and Continuous Deployment, are fine if someone tells me what the letters literally stand for, but sorry for not being so tech-brained that I haven't memorized every possible TLA that's ever been used in tech).

I am a Site Reliability Engineer, I have been for close to a decade, and this is not as common an abbreviation as you think it is. Also, my entire job isn't in question because I didn't memorize shorthand for a term that I don't use in my day-to-day.

Really appreciate getting downvoted to hell for saying "We can't throw readers a simple bone?"

All I'm asking for is CI(Continuous Integration) in the first paragraph.

Thank you

Maybe I'm alone in this, but as someone who is in tech, I don't know what CI is, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to have an expansion within the article the first time you use it...

AI is in the cultural zeitgeist, but you gotta expand most other things at least once.

I really assumed the point of this was going to be to complain about how no phone/phone cases are exactly the same... which is an absolute scourge on society that I assume is continued by Apple here.

What counter example did you provide? You said you had tried a few projects. You can just claim that without any evidence. I have no reason to believe you're not lying.

You could say "I used AI to cure cancer." This isn't a counter example, because there's no evidence for it.

The sooner cities and states start negotiating adversarially with companies that want to set up infrastructure in their state, the sooner we'll all be happier with the way things work.

If you want to be a part of my community, you need to obviously be giving at least as much as you take. And none of this can be theoretical in terms of what you're offering. Theoretical == non-existent.

I'm seeing more examples of you saying you're providing evidence than of you actually providing evidence. So far I've heard a single anecdote about what you did.

That's a pretty far cry from the "evidence" you claim to have dropped on multiple comments.

Came here looking for this response.

My follow-up question is "What percentage of the 'totally independent' group, are parents with adult children?"

i.e. there's almost an interesting statistic here about what percentage of adults have "no option" in relying on their parents for financial help, and what percentage of the remainder still do rely on their parents.

But once I had this question, I realized that I needed to be suspicious of the % itself.

I feel like market cap valuations should have some way to factor in the supply/demand constraints. I know that float exists as a concept, but I think it's insane to call SpaceX a Trillion dollar company, when if it started selling significant stock tomorrow, it would probably be selling pennies on the dollar.

yeah, I mean, if you don't engage with the comment, then you're not going to understand. So maybe you should take your own advice and actually read what I wrote.

> It is not a naked image of yourself.

If I show you a picture of yourself that is a perfect likeness of yourself, And do not tell you how it was collected/created.

Is that an image of you?

It looks exactly like you, and you have found yourself in a similar or same situation at some point (what do you know your memory is human).

You're saying you can't say one way or another whether or not that is a picture of you without knowing where it came from, but I'm saying it doesn't matter where it came from, it is your exact likeness, it is a picture of you.

What do you think my comment was responding to? Literally those are the words that I was responding to.

Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image is exactly the kind of lawyer-brained wording I was referring to when I made the comment about the mirror. "It's not a picture of you, it's a picture of a reflection of you."

> If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.

"You see, your honor, it's not a picture of them, it's a picture of their reflection in the mirror."

I feel like this discussion is a question of what the exact structure of the hydrogen-filled blimp should look like, and not a discussion of the fact that THE BLIMP IS FILLED WITH HYDROGEN.

Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words, that we skipped right over the clearly wrong/awful intent.

I've been having this thought for the last month.

The giveaway was my Medical Professional father thinking that AI was really good at things outside of his area of expertise, and really bad at things inside of his area of expertise.

also assuming there's signal in that noise...

I think it's reasonable for governments to signal a decision like this that parents can ultimately choose to bypass. So it's both to explain the harms and posture to reduce those harms to children, and to leave the final decision to parents.

No, this will force the first person to be creative. Not even necessarily kids.

That's justifying this because we've had rampant runaway inflation...

There's nothing special about the number $1T.

I think I'm looking at general "retirement funds" which are a little more opaque. e.g. Vanguard/TD retirement funds, when I looked into them, didn't have any information on "what is in them." Just general breakdowns.

> Is it?

Given that they've had to change the rules of index funds to allow for this, yes, this is not what people expect.

Curious how someone with a 401k, who didn't want their retirement to be used by these companies to buy at an inflated price, would go about opting out of this.

Typically I just have my 401k in an index fund so that things have to become established before they're added. This seems like it's circumventing that, and I would be inclined to vote with my wallet. But everything around 401k index funds that I see are very opaque, so it's not totally clear to me how I would avoid this if I wanted to.

Who invests in an index fund for "moonshots"?

Everyone I know who invests in an index fund is doing so to mitigate the risks of things like "moonshots" which are typically much riskier investments.

This feels like the kind of thing where, "you must be at least this human to pass" and that it just otherwise mostly wastes your time if you're a robot would cover most of what Captchas are useful for.

Like, if it takes you 3-5 seconds to get through a captcha as a human, as long as every single event has that effort added, the impact to something trying to use/reuse the end-page is way worse if you're a robot than if you're a human.

I can see a few usecases where it would still be valuable to continue the game of cat-and-mouse, but I feel like solving for consistency of human experience of your website, may actually be more punishing to anything trying to bypass it.

Huh, for someone whose "about" page says: “Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.”

You seem to be pushing an ideological agenda around wikipedia by posting opinion pieces about "how biased" wikipedia is.

I think the thing you have to understand is, there is no "unbiased" so treating wikipedia as "biased" in a vacuum misrepresents the fact-checking processes that go into validating articles written on wikipedia. Wikipedia does more to unbias the topics than like, 99% of the news media, and probably 100% of the substack/op-eds you appear to be consuming about wikipedia...

For example, this op-ed doesn't site a single counter-factual primary source.

Seems like a pretty political take on a wikipedia article, and none of it seems to take issue with the facts presented in the wikipedia article either. Just general mistrust of wikipedia construed as "whitewashing" which isn't even a correct use of that term in this day and age.

Gotta love "I don't need to show my work! It's self-evident!"

It's not self-evident, or the person wouldn't have asked for a source.

And you have numbers that you're pulling from "somewhere" without sharing a source for them, which means it's even further not self-evident.