If I had to guess, it's already built and is just waiting on Product's/Marketing's desk. How do you position this without looking like your roadmap is being determined by newcomers? Probably don't want to adopt the same verbiage+acronyms - but also can't be seen to be just sherlocking features.
Doing this on a throwaway to ask some awkward questions.
Way to go and all, and I suppose the investors got an exit but I still scratch my head on this one. We've seen the rise of World Labs from the beginning to this exit, and still the raw output is barely usable for any conceivable use case.
The raw output from these models is very similar or identical to what you can get to generating a splat from a camera that rotates using minimax or other frontier video models.
I work with clients in real world design contexts and the output from world labs was never usable due to all sorts of distortions and errors and stuff.
So again it's cool, but like what was all this hype about? This was usable in a very niche case if you're making video games with no care for spatial continuity and are okay with super heavy assets.
I am surely missing something as I just black box test these things for applicability in the real world, and I just never found any.
Another part of the story a lot of people don't know is apparently Lucas's cut of the original Star Wars was horrible, so his wife came in and redid everything and that's the version that went to theaters. And she was the editor on the remaining two of the original trilogy as well.
I think it's pretty clear to everyone now that when Lucas is flying solo his final output is... not great. He obviously imagined a universe a lot of people find compelling, but wasn't always the best person to realize the vision of that universe.
Near the end of high school a teacher said something that really struck me. She said that some people would look back on their high school years as the best time of their life, while others would slam that book shut and never look back. Not the most profound statement, but it really lit up my teenage brain.
High school was a really awkward period for me that was much more stressful than enjoyable. The idea that I could choose to never return to anything like that and have a completely different rest of my life was exhilarating to contemplate.
It turned out to be true. College was much better for me than high school; finishing college and becoming an adult was better than being in school at all. Everyone has different experiences but I doubt mine is all that rare, I think a lot of people have kind of a miserable time in high school before going on to figure out a life they enjoy. This pop culture idolization of the period does seem over the top to me as well.
The app store gatekeepers have so much power that it would be nice to see some legal requirements for operators of those stores put in place.
If your app is rejected, there should be a real appeal process. Maybe developers should be able to demand arbitration for some non-trivial fee?
The first step of the appeal would be for the store to disclose to the arbitrator precisely what rule was violated and in what way. The arbitrator can uphold the rejection and you lose your fee or can force the app store to accept the submission and you are refunded.
Microsoft support used to work something like this. There was a fee to get them on the phone but if the problem turned out to be an actual bug, the fee was refunded.
Probably the most interesting concept in there was how the author admits that Alcohol was a "net-positive" in life. Which adds a whole different flavor to the article. The decision to stop drinking alcohol takes a different meaning when a person can be intellectually honest about the situation.
I'm personally interested in society's relationship with alcohol now. There has been a huge change over the last decade and I don't think anyone fully understands it. Alcohol consumption is down from what I understand, but so is ALL risk-seeking behavior - which can include things like pursuing romantic relationships and starting businesses. Meanwhile there is a massive downturn in psychological well being.
Does anyone have any unbiased studies on this phenomenon? Has there been a more thorough investigation on the matter?
In many (most perhaps, but hard to know personally) companies, most people don't really understand the market they are in, the competition, their own products, the customers etc well enough to actually make good decisions. They also aren't likely to be around (or held responsible) for decisions as they play out over years. So what has historically happened is that people use proxies for good decisions and understanding - which are clever sounding documents and presentations.
This is a long winded way of saying "people made up clever/sensible sounding stuff". Now it's easier to do it with AI so the problem is worse. However, I'm not sure what you were looking for was ever really there - the "inscrutable machines" and "inscrutable incentives" were always quite inscrutable.
Kinda related, but I hate how the big studios go after old videogames and try to take them down. It looks like, in the future, this era will be called the "digital dark ages", not because all the stuff got lost to bitrot, but because all the stuff became illegal to own so that the studios could sell the new stuff again and again.
Tip: you are blocking text selection for the terms of use and in a number of other spots. People often use text selection to copy and paste words for a variety of reasons. Some people select blocks of text to help mark what they are reading, and some people use it to paste the words in a dictionary or translation service of their choice. (Or when making a bug report to copy the version number from the about screen.)
Don't block text selection for prose, only for UI elements.
Unfortunately XMPP is an absolutely terrible protocol. IRC's not much good either, but at least it has the excuse of being ancient and limited in what it wanted to achieve.
I don't know how it just happens that sending text messages to people can manage to result in specs that are painful to implement.
Agree it’s crazy, but it’s the least worst thing for them right now when considering they have completely failed to deliver all the promised impacts of AI. Remember when the same AI bros were saying there’d be mass unemployment by now because of these models?
The growth of these companies is massively impressive as is the tech, but they are an order of magnitude or more off where they need to be to justify anything like the valuations they need to stay alive.
It’s budget season in the corporate world and from what folks are saying things are not going well for the big labs. Token budgets are being slashed and companies are switching to open weight models. That coupled with the lack of demonstrable business impact at scale is setting the big labs up for a world of hurt. Something they can more easily explain if they have to “slow down” for safety. Unfortunately for them most folks don’t seem to be falling for that trick.
Intelligent people can be wrong. Massive revelation here.
What's interesting is that the author apparently never considers the possibility that some of the people he holds up as case studies didn't actually believe their "models" were right but had other motivations for their actions.
McNamara is the perfect example of this. It's pretty well established now that he knew the US was never going to "win" in Vietnam but he kept going for other reasons, such as a deep sense of loyalty to President Johnson.
From this perspective, the numbers (picking the "right" ones and manipulating them) were used to support a narrative. They weren't evidence that McNamara actually believed his "model" was working.
Applying this to Blue Zones: intellectuals can be opportunists. They might realize the data is bad and the conclusion is not as well supported by it, but that there's a story ("model") that is appealing and can be packaged and sold.
Edit: I should also add that there's a semantic dimension to this post. Robert McNamara was not an "intellectual"; he was a technocrat. So it seems like the author is defining "intellectual" as any person who is considered "intelligent", but I guess "Intelligent People Are Fucking Idiots" wasn't as good a headline.
Yeah, that's the problem with this. Should one get the present day value of the shares (a billion), or present day value of the worth at that time (thousands)?
It's a bit the same as people making fun of someone buying a pizza with bitcoin, now worth a hundred thousand. It wasn't at the time, and most likely people would've sold it long before when it started to rise. And the hindsight should then be just as much "if you bought a pizza at the time in USD, why didn't you buy bitcoin instead??".
So to me one should get the latter of the two alternatives. People only come out of the woodwork because it suddenly happened to be worth a lot.
I don't understand why this is written in Typescript. This is a great example of how agents can write code (I'm sure they wrote `cf`), yet having fundamental computer science knowledge is still critical. Do not force your users to manage the dependencies of your cli. Do write your cli in a compiled language. Understand the reason for those decisions and tell your agents to use the correct architecture.
> support a political cause they don't really understand.
I'll accept this as a reasonable excuse for the non-HN crowd.
But the HN crowd should understand the cause. We've all experienced or heard stories of the IE6 monopoly days, and few of us trust Google.
And it's not much of a sacrifice to use Firefox, it's a great browser. Maybe not the best for everybody, but it is the best for some and OK for many/all. Calling yourself a martyr just because you use Firefox for political reasons seems a stretch.
At the risk of asking rather unpopular questions, don't you think this has its roots not in any cowardice or contempt for educators or healthcare providers, but rather in a legal system and society, that's very sympathetic to those that engage in anti-social behavior?
As I understand it, influential activist organizations have spent decades demonizing something called the "school-to-prison pipeline" - schools assisting in the prosecution of criminal students. Can we really expect the school district to back up its teachers against the criminal actions of its students in such an environment?
I think the author underestimates how boring and simple 90% of enterprise software is. The part that isn’t powering aircraft and power plants. So much of it originates from one-nighters, badly managed subcontractors, and requirements that are of low quality to begin with (because they are written by people who have very different day jobs). And you know what? Most of that runs 24/7 without a glitch. LLMs just gives us more of that. And maybe it’s even better
Because the downsides that exist for other companies simply do not exist for this tier of rich companies. Examples:
- product liability
- negligence (civil or criminal)
- Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (requires intent, which after N "accidents" seems like a jury should at least evaluate whether intent is present as understood in a courtroom. Hard to blame "surprise" after the Nth "accidental" breakout.)
The bottom line is that if you or I trained a local model and it did any of this stuff, we would experience Consequences. ("Don't try this at home!") But an artifact of our unequal legal regime is that big rich companies generally do not and thus brazenly touting their immunity is part of their business strategy.
>Do you think this is really about climate change? No, these are empty human beings, desperate for their lives to mean something. And their apocalyptic climate change model has done that for them. It has nothing to do with science. They probably don’t realize that the marginal rate of energy cost is fast approaching zero. That technological innovation is exponential and carbon capture can likely be made economical relatively soon. Hell, they probably aren’t even pro-nuclear.
From a BBC explainer of what these protestors want:
"Just Stop Oil (JSO) wants the UK to stop approving new fossil fuel projects, which are a major cause of climate change."
That's a narrow goal and they stopped when they thought they'd achieved it.
So their allegedly "apocalyptic" climate change model doesn't even stretch as far as stopping producing from existing oil fields, just new ones before they become sunk costs. Which makes sense because as this rant says, we have new and better tech to replace it.
They are advocating the reasonsable compromise position. This guy is the "intellectual" who isn't letting facts get in the way of his rant about smart people.
I'm guessing he's also missed the irony of citing Pol Pot killing all the educated folk as the intro to his "smart people are the problem" rant.
My biggest problem with Reddit is that trolls, memes, unintelligent posts have taken over the platform. Go to any semi-popular subreddit and most upvoted posts are just low effort memes. Posts that are long and well thought out don't win over memes and trolls. One of the reasons is that posting a few short words wins in upvotes because they get posted first while it takes much longer to write something thoughtful.
Reddit's system rewards these low effort posts for some reason. Over time, the platform becomes less and less trustworthy until it becomes something like Quora.
There are Street View photos that look like they were taken from someone driving down one of the side streets so you can pretty much walk on it. You can see apartment buildings, local shops, people going about their day... It’s heart-wrenching to contrast that life with the current aerial view, with nothing but rubble and destruction.
