Examples like yours and the author's don't convince me. It seems like a lot of what people are "missing" from the AI process is the social aspect which is largely a side effect in these examples. For instance, finding out that someone's relative had cancer after asking for help with a recipe.
Getting an internet recipe from AI doesn't stop you from reaching out to your friend and finding out if they are going through anything, if anything it frees you up to do exactly that.
Same with this t-shirt slogan example. What you miss is the group activity and the spontaneity. But you can still do this without it being a side effect of a business objective. You can still talk to your friends, and with AI making everything faster you can talk to them even more now.
Just five years ago this opinion was heresy on HN. Those of us who still remembered their behavior in the 80s/90s were belittled.
"They have changed, gramps. This really smart Satya Nadella is CEO. They are the good guys now. Don't be so bitter over old stuff like systematic use of illegal tactics to attempt to kill all of its competitors including Linux."
Also: Note that the headline undersells the news dramatically. The article begins with:
"GitHub has confirmed that roughly 3,800 internal repositories were breached after one of its employees installed a malicious VS Code extension."
Well the vacuum cleaner joke is very old, was true then, is true now, has continued to be true despite some people having the wool pulled over their eyes and thinking that Microsoft was no longer the enemy at some point. They have always been the enemy. Stay on your toes, don’t let them in.
You have a good point about the human rate of mathematical discovery, but Ayer was an idiot and later Witt contradicted early Witt. For the "already implicit" claim to be true, mathematics would have to be a closed system. But it has already been proven that it is not. You can use math to escape math, hence the need for Zermelo-Frankel and a bunch of other axiomatic pins. The truth is that we don't really understand the full vastness of what would objectively be "math" and that it is possible that our perceived math is terribly wrong and a subset of a greater math. Whether that greater math has the same seemingly closed system properties is not something that can be known.
> Whether that greater math has the same seemingly closed system properties is not something that can be known
negative numbers were invented to solve equations which only used naturals.
irrationals were invented to solve equations which could be expressed with rationals. complex numbers were invented to represent solutions to polynomials. so on and so forth. At each point new ideas are invented to complete some un-answerable questions. There is a long history of this. Any closed system has unanswerable questions within itself is a paraphrasing of goedel's incompleteness theorem.
At this point I think the category theorists hit the foundational idea squarely on the mark:
1. Start with a few simple but non-trivial terms and axioms
2. Define "universal constructions" as procedures for building uniquely identifiable structures on top of that substrate
3. Prove that various assemblages of these universal constructions satisfy the axioms of the substrate itself
4. "Lift" every theorem proven from the substrate alone into the more sophisticated construction
I'm not a mathematician (I just play one at my job) so the language I've used is probably imprecise but close enough.
It may be true that you can't prove the axioms of a system from within the system itself, but that just means that you need to make sure you start from a minimal set of axioms that, in some sense, simply says "this is what it means to exist and to interact with other things that exist". Axioms that merely give you enough to do any kind of mathematics in the first place, that is. If those axioms allow you to cleanly "bootstrap" your way to higher and higher levels up the tower of abstraction by mapping complex things back on to the simple axiomatic things, then you have an "open" or infinitely extensible system.
I agree with you all around except it's somewhat up for debate actually that the PI is "contradicting" the Tractatus. That is, there is the so called "resolute reading" of the Tractatus that had some traction for a while.
But note this is more to say that the Tractatus is like PI, not the other way around. And in that, takes like GPs would be considered the "nonsense" we are supposed to "climb over" in the last proposition of Tractatus.
This "car-tinkering app" is used as a glorified GameShark for deleting factory emissions controls, I don't feel sorry for anyone who uses this to roll coal or whatever. Instead of investigating everyone on the list of users of this app, should the government instead ban diesel engines knowing their emissions controls software will be defeated? Should environmental regulations be relaxed? What is really the solution here?
The enforcement agencies all want easy ways to perform their enforcement duties.
Enforcing it the hard way by catching people in the act, or even spot checking, is difficult, and takes work and budget.
However, in asking such enforcement work to be made easy, the cost is borne by the rest of the innocents in losing their privacy or rights. Individually, each single instance of such loss is minuscule, but collectively it's a huge loss of rights and privacy - not to mention precedence.
Cops are worthless but, more importantly, they have huge leverage. They can just stop policing at any time as a form of protest, and departments regularly do that. The system needs fundamental reform.
Well if they don’t want to get defunded they better start doing their jobs. Not that they were all that useful in the first place. If your house is getting broken into the cops will not be able to help you. So I don’t know what the big deal is about defunding the police. It’s not clear to me what the money is being used for.
Periodic vehicle inspection for emissions and safety compliance. Many jurisdictions already have this for gas engine emissions, a handful of states already have safety inspections. Done right, it can be low burden and low cost, and basically put an end to Def deletion. Done poorly it's grift to the shops that do the inspections, and an economically external annoyance to vehicle owners, and unnecessarily limits the ability of people to tinker with their own vehicles.
I don't really care how it affects car modders or people with sports cars. I have a sports car, and yeah the California smog test has been super annoying cause of electrical problems with that are unrelated to its actual emissions, but I knew what I was getting into when I bought something known for unreliability. Fixed it myself. There's a dude across the street with a modded car who always complains he has to bribe the smog guy $500, as if he was forced into driving a track car on the street. I just want regular cars to be drivable without undue burdens, and the enthusiasts can deal with it.
California gasoline tax pisses me off more because it's higher than anywhere else and the money seemingly goes nowhere.
I don't care too much about hot-rodders either. California specifically requires the original emissions equipment remain intact. Here's two cases where that fails:
1. Close to 20 years ago I read about someone who converted a car to an EV with an old electric forklift motor, but then couldn't register the car. It was a model year that still required smog checks, but it couldn't pass a smog check because the original emissions equipment wasn't installed anymore.
2. My brother inherited our dad's 1992 pickup, and tries to keep it in running order mostly out of nostalgia. He would like to replace the engine with a newer model that would burn less fuel, produce more power, and correctly installed, no doubt would have lower emissions. But then it wouldn't pass the smog check, because it wouldn't still have the original emissions equipment.
Having said all that, I agree that it disproportionately impacts the poor, because the poor tend to drive older cars that are more likely to need repairs to pass an inspection, and because the inspection fees make a larger impact on the budget of the poor, and because the employment flexibility to be without their car for half a day for the inspection, or longer if repairs are needed, is not as common among the poor. You could subsidize the inspections for low value cars, which would help with the cost aspect, but I don't know a way to solve the other aspects beyond trying to find the minimum amount of inspection that meets the policy goals.
California's way of doing it is really frustrating and very clearly meant to force older cars off the road and push people into buying new ones in an effort to help out dealers and car manufacturers.
My car is a bit older but its perfectly reliable. It doesn't require a monthly subscription, it doesn't track my location, it doesn't have a remote kill switch, and the title isn't owned by some bank. It would even blow fine on an emissions test. I still couldn't use it in California though because some of the original emissions equipment has failed and original replacements are impossible to find so alternative replacements have had to be used instead.
My car wouldn't pass, not because it can't pass the emissions test, but because the original equipment that California requires by law failed years ago and replacements are not available. So I would be forced to get rid of my perfectly good car and buy an expensive new one not because it doesn't work, but because the law strictly requires original equipment.
All my Vehicles are many decades older. I think it would impose a financial burden on many in my community who also have older vehicles (less financially well off) to get them up to 'spec'. The vast majority of cars are newer and would have no issue passing.
I had to sell by beloved modded sports car when I moved to California. It blew clean as a whistle, but since the aftermarket parts were all from out of state (installed over the course of years), the state failed it as “tampered.” What a pile of shit. These guys are somehow driving around rolling coal on cyclists without getting grief, but I have to get rid of my car because it doesn’t have the right CA stamp on the intake system. CA’s system is terrible for home mechanics.
The rules mostly penalise the poor (and often unfairly).
You are severely underestimating how hard "done right" is.
I'm from New Zealand and the yearly car checkup is burdensome. About $75 and an hour wasted minimum to get car checked.
However the workshop profits come from fixing faults so their economic incentive is to find faults.
It costs you way more time if something needs fixing (parts delays, getting car and from workshop, etc.)
Our warrant of fitness regulations are ostensibly for safety (yours and others). However the jobsworth wonks have zero incentive to balance the risks versus the costs. The rules get stricter every year for goals that have no measurable outcome.
Many of the safety regulations are sensible, but many are just bullshit.
From memory (I haven't lived in NZ for a while now), the WoF check could be done at VTNZ stations, which explicitly did not do repairs to avoid this conflict of interest.
Alas, it looks like VTNZ was privatised and the exact outcome you would expect happened.
But really I think the government incentives are the root cause.
Fortunately I can still find workshops that care about doing a good job (more than they care about ripping off customers). But I feel bad for anyone who can't pick good services: which takes skill and costs time.
I never used VTNZ because I found them to be overly picky when I tried them. I thought VTNZ followed the rules too strictly and you didn't get any fair relaxation. I didn't know the history you have mentioned.
New Zealand sounds unreasonable. It's reasonable in like California. They don't mandate yearly checkups, just smog testing which is every 2 years for cars older than 8 years.
federal and state governments buy and operate diesel vehicles without emissions controls because of how bad they are in critical situations. rules for thee but not for me.
If my car fails while I'm driving over the mountain in the winter and leaves me stranded outside of cell service in sub zero weather, that would be a critical situation.
If my car fails while I'm driving through the desert and leaves me stranded in 100+ degree heat in the summer, that would be a critical situation.
If my car fails while I'm driving on a busy part of I5, that could be a critical situation.
I get that the rolling coal mods or whatever aren't designed to improve reliability, but things like deleting EGR or modifying the control logic for the DEF system are and can prevent a vehicle from failing in a situation that could be life threatening. Again, the government already knows this which is why they order their vehicles with those exact modifications already done.
Honestly, how do you know? Regardless, it's completely unfair. The government knows emissions control tech takes one of the most reliable workhorse powerplants in the world and neuters it, weakens it, and makes it more susceptible to failure. A lot of folks delete their diesel trucks not to "roll coal" or own the libs, but because it makes their vehicles more reliable.
Modern trucks, even with emissions controls, are more powerful than anything older. Engines are more reliable if anything, though there are plenty of pesky non-engine electronics ruining the useful lifespans of modern cars.
If you're talking about black smoke out of the exhaust, no it doesn't help reliability. If you just mean tuning to optimize not for emissions, yeah it can help if you know exactly what you're doing or screw it up if you don't, either way you'll only find out later. Doesn't seem to matter because most professionals already make their living without messing with their trucks.
idk who downvoted you, that's not appropriate, so +1'd you to avoid comment death
So what? It's anti-social behavior. What thought does the deleted diesel truck driver give to his fellow citizens, whose otherwise reliable respiratory systems are weakened and made more susceptible to failure by toxic fumes and particulates?
Refusing to understand something and are making an uninformed decision as a result isn't a great thing to brag about.
The fact is, emissions regulations in many ways have nothing to do with health or clean air. I don't drive a diesel truck myself so its not like I'm trying to defend my own behavior or anything. I'm a former automotive engineer who is unfortunately very familiar with the regulations and how nonsensical they are.
Maybe they don't, but I get it. Optimizing for lower emission doesn't mean highest reliability, or even necessarily highest fuel economy. Emissions parts can fail and be expensive to replace. That doesn't mean people should be allowed to delete emissions. Last time I had my cats fail, the cheapest option was to saw them off, I didn't do that.
Site full of hackers who would fight to the death over open source and their ability to run their computers the way they want to, but when it’s about car enthusiasts instead of computer enthusiasts, suddenly nobody cares.
Idk if this makes it better or worse, but I won't fight to the death over open source/hardware, I've got Apple stuff. It's also not the same thing because computers don't pollute like cars.
I think if you want to modify your car that's great, you should be able to do literally whatever you want... so long as it's still safe to the people around you. Rolling coal is not. I think thats very reasonable.
Everyone knows git is decentralized. What people are searching for is a space for the social component of development such as issue tracking. Being able to reference lines of codes in issues is a killer feature of github. Gitea and gitlab do it too but not as well.
Also "just use multiple remotes" doesn't solve the problem. If you don't trust GitHub you shouldn't be pushing code there to begin with. So the ideal platform for hosting an equivalent platform as Github needs to be a trusted one as well.
I sort of always expect there to be an LPE to root on Linux tbh, if anything this is great news and Linux might be a useful multiuser system after all.
To add to your point: Someone should let the author know that considering oneself informed and taste-driven is itself cheugy. The performative aspect is the essence of cheug. So I hope he was being ironic.
Costco itself, in a way, is a sort of Wittgenstein's ladder, or Wittgenstein's warehouse, because eventually you realize that everything sold under the Kirkland label is just a de-badged top brand. If you still reach for brand names for staple goods at Costco knowing full well the Kirkland product is either the same or superior, then you know that the shadows of brand names still haunt you and occlude your sight. When you are able to escape these shadows and see the sun, then you are free.
While true concerning the quality of Kirkland brand, sometimes there are still differences that can matter. I love the Kirkland bacon but they don't sell a thick cut version (at least at my Costco) so sometimes I buy the "brand name" instead.
That's interesting. Where I live, the thing that sticks out in my mind the most about buying Kirkland bacon from Costco, is how ridiculously thick-cut it is. It's literally the thickest bacon I've ever encountered lol
I also find it funny that many of the people who look down on Costco rave about Trader Joe's and find it cool -- even though, like Kirkland, Trader Joe's products are mostly de-badged brands as well.
