zzzeek

the parent poster is trying to say "well where's your evidence that a society not based around human labor is possible?" which is sort of a silly question

you can't claim an invention is invalid because there are no "studies" that show such an invention has already existed and succeeded, you'd by definition never invent anything!

did Chad, or whoever posted this for him, post this as a jpg with no alt text? wow, thought Chad was a bit better than that (I can't even read this thing easily and im not considered to be visually impaired)

"but it's a real typewritten letter! you dont understand!"

yeah but you didn't snail mail it to all of us, you or someone put it on the internet on a webpage. if you can scan a letter as a JPG and scp it to a server, you can run an OCR and put alt text in.

This story is one I posted, and nobody replied to it. Not to mention I did no such thing as "post verbatim from a Google search" as though I wrote it, I would never do that and feel free to look through my nearly two decade posting history to find that, it's a quote which I attributed.

If you don't like my posts, the downmod button is right there. I can otherwise do without the moralizing lecture which is definitely something nobody wants here. Did you just search for "AI" posts that needed policing to even find this totally dead thread ? Talk about HN being a "job"

Jeff Bezos went on NYT dealbook and had the gall to say "we did layoffs at the WP because it needs to be profitable; if it's not profitable, it's because people are not willing to buy the product it's selling"

after he literally single-handedly ruined the product by personally censoring the editorial team and/or firing large numbers of journalists on multiple, extremely high-profile PR-disastering occasions [1] [2]

from that perspective, Bezos seems perfectly content to weather PR disasters from his companies and drape them in bizarre rationalizations.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-pos...

[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-60-000-washington-post-2...

well then parent posters inaccurate doomerism will sit there unchallenged

a gemini query is like a google search with natural language embedded. ill do my "google search" and just rewrite the text next time, ta

unless google searches are also illegal for hacker news commenting

> If rekabis cared about what an LLM had to say they could have done that themselves.

I post stories here hoping for just that human interaction you speak of, plenty of scientists here who could have added to the topic, but none did. Doomerists are not typically interested in researching their claims, it would make for much less sensationalistic claims. From my own human perspective, the best I could offer without research is "that looks like a really ridiculous claim". I think a researched claim is a lot more valuable here.

I dont think it's welcome on hacker news here but I pasted your comment into Gemini and it has a lot of interesting things to say about it (needless to say it's skeptical and points out a lot of reasons for this), I recommend trying it out.

oh heck here's it's response to the Venus part:

"Climate scientists and astrophysicists have looked into this extensively. The definitive scientific consensus is that a Venus scenario is physically impossible on Earth from burning fossil fuels. To trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that vaporizes the oceans (like Venus), Earth would need to receive much more solar radiation than it currently does. Even if we burned every single ounce of fossil fuel on the planet and triggered all feedback loops, the Earth would become devastatingly hot and hostile to human civilization, but it would eventually stabilize. It would not turn into Venus."

i dont think employees are expected to prioritize one customer of (we would assume) little monetary consequence in this way. amazon would rather everyone keep heads down, dont let the casualties slow down the machine or create exception cases, and definitely dont bother upper management with your personal salvation quests.

the identification of populations with a loss-of-function mutation in the PCSK9 gene having extremely low rates of heart disease (and otherwise being perfectly fine with little-to-no functional PCSK9 present) looks to be a game changer. There is already fast growth of so-called PCSK9 inhibitors such as Repatha which I'm now on. These treatments seem to be superior to statins in most ways except price + it's an injection, for the moment.

> the city must start the relocation process now to avoid chaos.

I've no reason to doubt this is absolutely true.

that's not what they're gonna do though....

> The region has “crossed the point of no return,” the paper’s authors wrote, adding New Orleans “may well be surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico before the end of this century.”

sorry, Gulf of what ? /s

thanks, me too!

I'd recommend https://myticker.com/ which was shared here some time ago.

I followed the advice on this site and actually got very bad news. But the good news would be, that I'm on a strict medication regimen now and maybe I'll live to see my son's graduation.

RFK is killing people. it's what he does.

obligatory "I've never used uv or any other of these tools, pip has been fine for me and I've been programming for 40 years" post

thanks for listening

clarification, her testimony is entirely about construction issues, which is fine, but i dont appreciate how she's misleadingly taking advantage of how it looks like she's claiming "data centers pollute water". details at https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-...:

> In July 2025, the Administration published an Executive Order to accelerate federal permitting of data center infrastructure. On May 11th, 2026, Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed a rule to allow data center developers to engage in “pre-construction” activities before they receive their final environmental permits. The EPA claims this has “no impact to human health or the environment.”

she wants to ban this apparent practice of companies beginning excavation for their new datacenter before they even get their permits, which I entirely support.

im generally an AOC fan however this looks a little bit suspect, since we dont know where she got these jars from, and also the datacenters are only under construction, not actually running. Construction can certainly cause water to run dirty for a bit.

totally, let's go Norway!

> Capitalism was cool as an evolutionary step but it's pretty fucking clear we're going to need another innovation here sometime soon.

Well your other options are Marxism or Star Trek replicators. I'd choose the latter.

there is only one man who is surprised and he is Orange and Extremely Ignorant

so...they are manually re-setting the "interaction limits" over and over again, since they are only temporary?

why not use hooks to automatically reject issue comments / PRs etc. from users that didnt go through onboarding, rather than repurposing GH features that aren't really designed for that use (and are hence in danger of being changed someday)?

They are. This is why the billionaire tech class is complacent in this disaster. Musk is already a mass murderer due his illegal sabotage of USAID (estimates of 600000 deaths already [1]) this new outbreak adds to his death toll.

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-documentary...

Oh wow that gives the billionaire class so much intellectual credit they don't deserve. No, they see the same ChatGPT we all do and their mediocre brains with zero self understanding (see andreessen's explicit comments to this effect) determine "it's a new life form ! It's brilliant / conscious / my new girlfriend!"

Never overestimate the billionaire class....

I get a lot more done with lot less frustration giving my work to Claude than to a junior dev quite frankly and I've managed many groups over my career.

the value of the junior dev is the hopes that they'd be a senior dev someday, I dont have a solution to that problem. But in my current capacity where the only devs I'm "managing" these days are via open source contributions, they're already gone - 100% of what I get is through their own work with LLMs (which I have to spend more time correcting than if I used the LLM myself).

I have no problem with new datacenters being built, but if the Fortune article is to be believed, it's that the suddenly tight timeline is due to the rapid increase in need for these facilities.

my post is more about how we really need to be seeking energy sources from all possible corners, and we have a government that is literally paying billions to contractors to cancel wind projects.

from the article: "NV Energy plans to end its contract with Liberty in May 2027, citing growing demand and its own resource constraints."

the "growing demand" is the AI datacenters (the linked story goes into detail). it's the direct result, so while it might feel soothing that this other story doesnt actually mention "AI" it's mostly just an omission.

(edit) the issue is that there's a sudden tight timeline and yes as other comments mention it's too bad the issue wasn't addressed sooner, but that's not very unusual when there's no major impetus to force a change. and that whether or not AI/LLM is a net good for society (I literally have Claude writing code for me as I type this), the energy issue is one that seems to be a real one (unlike the water issue which mostly seems to be not so real).

the town^H^H^H^H region (edit) is already in the process of expanding their infrastructure to get power from elsewhere so things will be "fine", but this is a terrible time to have a government that is rabidly cancelling non-fossil energy projects as fast as possible.

im either the biggest idiot in the world or this person is a terrible "copywriter". I found this post to be nearly unintelligible: "You can’t explain away someone else’s problem using your own problems." WTF does that mean? this would be a good place to put some very simplistic examples of what they mean, but they dont. is that because theyre trying to be succinct? clearly not as the post rambles on and on anyway. I hate posts that are both 1. not explaining their concept and 2. super long winded. That's a problem

are we just trying to say, "use AI for prototyping and customer demos that aren't important to be mature, use senior devs to develop and maintain the real products" ? You could just say that then...? Which I also disagree with as how AI should be used, AI is valid to include as a tool across all forms of development - it just should never be put in charge for production-level software (e.g. no vibe coding of mission critical components).

the venn diagram of people who say "AI produces useless results I have to 100% throw away" and people who say "I've never successfully delegated parts of large software development to junior programmers" is a circle

It wasn't "preventable" though. How would you prevent what's been happening ? Pass a law making GPUs illegal ? Just ..."convince" everyone that the machine that can write working software, business letters and render good enough banner and print advertising for nearly free is evil and just don't use it (ask Emily Bender how that's going)? There is no realistic way from stopping any of this from happening. Need a different approach.

this guy is going to get a high paying job at some defense contractor somewhere and we'll never see anything he does again.

Yes because it sounds completely exaggerative and ridiculous

Hence the Onion

This is almost like Onion levels of parody how much better Chinese EVs are than American ones

the best PRs I get are from more senior level people who are at work, hit a specific problem they had, and wanted to help out the project with a good PR. Then you never hear from them again because, of course, they're busy!

When you have junior people come in with PRs and you do the whole hand-holding thing so they learn and grow and all that, they're there because my project is famous, they want to get credit (which I give them), then they're off to get jobs whereever and they are working with completely different technologies, and you never hear from them again either, because, of course, they're now busy!

Really, outside of my core group of hangers-on, Claude is the only contributor we have that doesn't leave us.

> This makes a lot of sense to me. It relates to an idea I've seen circulating elsewhere: if a PR was mostly written by an LLM, why should a project maintainer spend time reviewing and discussing that PR as opposed to firing up their own LLM to solve the same problem?

well yeah. I almost use PRs now just as a lazy means of issue prioritization. I'd love if github had more fine-grained controls to disable PRs but allow occasional contributors in (they don't).