skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'd say it's more like, they don't understand this thoroughly enough, as it's not their wheelhouse (sorry), so when someone will come to them and tell, "we can make wheels unusable for terrorists and child traffickers while not breaking them for law-abiding citizens, using the magic of our TECH", they will listen and believe it.

And, of course, the TECH will be bullshit, but the laws will be changed to support it, and it'll make wheels less useful for people while not affecting terrorists at all, but hey, you should be happy your wheel subscription comes with so many colors this season! And have some patriotic pride, after all, our wheels-as-a-service companies account for a third of our GDP!

Case in point: DRM.
The bot probably is wired to assume the question is correctly asked? Thus the silly answer with contradictions.
Not only can it pass FRQs, but I have also been using it to solve AP CSA Multiple Choice questions. Most of the time, it spits out the correct choice with a valid justification. A pretty helpful tool for students new to computer science! (though one shouldn't be doing AP CSA without prior CS knowledge as it ruins one's interest in computer science IMO)
It is to Hancock's credit that he acknowledges everything was built by regular people constrained by regular physics. Accusations of racism are as reprehensible as they seem.

That he is not exactly clear on regular physics is a result of his background. (E.g. confusing axial precession with solar system dynamics.) What is clear, and that justifies his complaints, is that inconvenient evidence is very systematically ignored. Would-be debunkers uniformly avoid mention of any of the inconvenient evidence motivating the speculation, or admitting the problem it presents. The word for all of them (miniminuteman perhaps excepted) is "disingenuous".

Obviously journalist Graham Hancock is not going to discover the scientific truth the evidence points to. But his cohort are the only ones tackling the questions. He does have a talent for lighting on the right side of controversy, e.g. the now well-established Canada ice sheet comet strike 12,800 years ago. Which no one mentions anymore.

(NB: whether the comet strike had any role in kicking off the Younger Dryas cold spell is a separate issue, of no import here.)

That all of the most impressive megalithic stonework is also the oldest, and that no one knows how old it really is, should be occupying all archaeologists full-time. They could find out how old it all is, if they cared, via surface luminescence.
The canonical answer for the first problem by the AP board seems kinda bad stylistically. It encourages the use of a deep nesting structure which doesn't seem to make sense.
> Only an idiot would go out into the cold in Alaska depending on technology that explicitly says it might not work for you if you have a hill or you’re in a weird latitude.

Many people who live in those remote villages practice at least some degree of self subsistence. You realize they were doing this long before iPhones were a thing, right? This is a way of life for many people in remote Alaskan villages. Do you think they were carrying around iPhones when they went out whale hunting with spears? Just because you don't understand another culture doesn't mean you should disparage their way of life. You basically just called everyone who lives further north than Fairbanks, Alaska stupid.

Source: Lived in Alaska for around 20 years, and have been thoroughly exposed to Inuit and Athabaskan culture.
Some people just wanna watch the world DELETE
Possibly they're just annoyed that someone is spreading wild ideas that haven't been checked for accuracy. Perhaps if it was labeled "speculation" they might calm down.
One should acknowledge that part of the reason for the increasing amount of paperwork is that many organisations campaign the government for "outcome based tax spending" which requires that for every tax dollar spend another dollar has to be spend on the "monitoring that it has been spend appropriately".
this guy might want to include data about facebook user number, dau / mau, instead of stock numbers.
facebook itself, not even counting insta or whatsapp, continues to grow.
it is hard to claim a "collapse" if the user base is growing
People are gushing over its ability to write code, forgetting that code is just another type of language that can be used to express ideas.

Logic however, transcends language. And it is clear that GPT3 has absolutely no understand of basic logic. It gives the impression of understanding logic by constructing sentences which are sometimes logically coherent.

We are a very long way from AGI.
It seems I made a mistake here, my bad.
I mean in this thread it sounds like one person literally asked "what is the solution to the trolley problem" and someone else described a specific trolley problem; no surprise those different prompts would give different answers
From the title, I was hoping this was going to be a very elaborate description of how computer monitors emit light in patterns your brain can recognize and think about.
It's hard to prove this, but it's very likely he just took this idea from Polybius.
It's not about blame. The reason why Twitter cares about hate speech is because they are a commercial service and they want people to enjoy their product. You can get infinite amounts of hate speech on 8chan, yet those services aren't that popular.
Onsen is a great reason to visit random rural area in Japan.
Isn't that Google? Google lacks all the features I use DDG for (privacy and bangs)
Egypts White Desert
Unless you identify anything with a political scope and then you're back to adversarial positions.

It's mostly meaningless to cite popular support for anything that doesn't clarify how it'll be completed by Congress.

People are willingly allowing broken policies as long as their perceived harm is greater on their perceived "enemies"
I guess I'm not sure what you're demonstrating with this link. I watched Behind the Curve, and it generally treated flat-earth proponents as nice, well-meaning people who've just gotten themselves stuck in a rut where no evidence will convince them. That seems like the right attitude towards this kind of theory to me. Perhaps some of the scientists in the movie were exasperated by how obviously false flat earth is, but I can't imagine any of them writing a letter like the one in the source article, saying that flat earth theory is harmful and you're racist if you believe in it.
If I tried to work in my yard while it’s raining it would cause too much damage that’s too much work to repair . I don’t even do yard work for a couple days after it rains. This is solely for practical reasons for me.
What in the movie was false?
> Nobody blames Verizon if somebody makes a phone call to bully their kid.

The mid-20th century USA ended up developing extensive case law about the phone system. Once upon a time, quite a few people did think it was the phone company's responsibility to prevent such calls, within reason. And they litigated the question.

Does the phone company have the right to disconnect abusive and profane callers? Does the phone company have an obligation to disconnect such users? If the phone company fails to do so, are they civilly liable? Given the government-regulated quasi-monopoly status of the Bell system, was there a First Amendment or due process angle, if the phone company disconnects users for placing obscene or offensive calls?

The answers to such questions were not particularly obvious and it just sort of evolved organically to the status quo today. New laws were passed to deal with the situation, such as one that makes it a federal offence to knowingly place an obscene and unwanted phone call. And there are a number of regulations that impose an obligation on the carriers to try to reduce spam, unwanted solicitation, maintain calling logs, etc.
What’s to stop the university board of trustees from running off with the hedge fund without the administrators to keep them honest (to protect their own jobs if anything) ?
As the content becomes even more indistinguishable from human written content, wouldn't it be valuable to bad actors who wish to perpetrate heaps of unique writing representing their perspective? Not trying to fear monger (although I may sound like it) but while I agree 99.9% of people will stop posting "AI wrote this blog post" etc blogs, there are bound to be parties that begin mass producing content and infiltrating the non tech savvy person's timeline?
> As far as I know, ripping a CD for personal use is still technically an unauthorized copy in the USA.

Making a backup copy of a CD for yourself is legal as long as you don’t distribute it to other people. It falls under “Fair Use”. https://legalbeagle.com/12719622-dmca-backup-of-copyrighted-...
If humanity up and disappeared tomorrow, most of the environmental damage from cars, overpopulation, etc. would sort itself out in a couple of hundred years.

PFAS, however, are extremely chemically stable and some of them will still be around in 1,000+ years time. They also bioaccumulate, and biomagnification occurs in predators (similar to mercury). It is a massive problem and the repercussions will be with us for a very long time.

If you don't care about your own health, fine. But don't try and take a moral stance about caring for the environment and then complain about PFAS products going away. Being slightly uncomfortable while exercising is a very small price to pay for not screwing up the planet.
Yes administration is a very broad term in higher education. When people complain about administration they are almost always talking about the presidents cabinet and academic leadership, not, say, the folks in financial aid or admissions.
Fun! There's a whole bunch of cool DOS programs which fit in 32 or less bytes here: https://www.pouet.net/prodlist.php?type%5B0%5D=32b&page=1&or.... This one is a nice writeup of a fractal: https://www.pouet.net/topic.php?which=10164.
Don’t you need some kind of intentional “bad behavior” for involuntary manslaughter? I thought it required committing another unlawful act or being so reckless/negligent that it essentially meets that standard.

Some classic examples are petty thefts where the victim has a heart attack, or a medical practitioner acts outside their legal authority (e.g., while unlicensed) or egregiously failing to act despite having a duty of care.
ChatGPT is just regurgitating what they've fed it. Admittedly it does a really nice job of regurgitating and formatting that regurgitation really well but at the end of the day its just a really nice Google/StackOverflow in the CS world. It doesn't understand concepts, which students will need to understand how to extend our body of knowledge rather than just copy/paste it.
I just plugged in 600 lines of code that I knew had a bug in but didn't have the inclination to fix. After a conversation I think we might have the answer. At various points it splurged out 600 lines, but I asked it for a diff and it obliged. It also suggested a different implementation, so I asked it to fix my code in as few changes as possible and it did that too.

The ability to get something mostly there and have it fix bugs while explaining them is going to be massive. I mean, who really cares about the details? We only have had to care because, well, we've had no choice. But like how cruise control frees you up to just steer, and lane control frees you up even more, this means we can start to ease off on caring about the details of what we write, especially if it can produce tests too.
Originally it was Parkinson’s law, which, despite what Wikipedia would have you believe, is about the growth of bureaucracies and not the tendency of work to take as long as is available to do it.
I do have a google TV (or whatever it's actually called) and a TV with one of the newer chrome casts that has google TV built-in.

It is painfully annoying as I have downloaded apps for Disney+, Prime, etc. but I will not get recommendations for shows/films on these platforms, or simple integrations such as the option to continue playing from the google landing page. Any recommendations I do get end up being for media that I need to buy or subscribe to a service I do not have. Considering I have to download and login to each of the streaming apps, you would think google would know what I want to watch.

As for the recommendations in-app, they are not good. Ok, so Netflix shows me shows that I probably would like more than what it shows my wife, but 90% of them are still not good. If there is a show I know I want to watch it is painfully difficult to find it without specifically searching for it with textual input.

I don't think these platforms are actually recommending what they think you want to watch, more some overlap between what will decrease their bandwidth bill the most (i.e. currently cached closet to me) and some broad category like "horror".

There is definitely a market for a good cross-subscription/service recommendation platform for both TV/film and video games. It's definitely not google TV.
There are perfectly valid reasons to downvote AI answers, no matter the content:

- Whoever submitted the question very likely doesn't understand the question well enough to answer it themselves, so any feedback is not going to get a reasonable answer.

- The amount of time to check whether an answer is correct is non-zero. If you could somehow know that the answer was written by a human that ensures that the effort on the part of the answerer was non-trivial, and the "proof of work" infuses the answer with a minimum amount of trust which is absent in the case of a generated answer. Compare to a spam email: you wouldn't read all of the emails in your spam box thoroughly to determine if any of them contained a nugget of truth. You'd assume ill intent, and treat the contents accordingly.
These fake news articles are so common that they become farcical and lead to the questioning of ALL the reporting these publications do. Not everyone suffers from the Gell-Mann amnesia affect.

https://twitter.com/borzou/status/1599396059251253249

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2021/01/18/gell-mann-amnesia/
please, explain
UV is non-ionizing, and gives you skin cancer.
Have you tried Garuda MATE?
Sure, the cheeseburger is bad for you if you eat 10 every day, never exercise etc. But that kinda goes without saying right?

Just like you might say that a lawnmower is compliance tested against electrical faults before sale and is thus safe to use, despite having some sharp rotating blades on the bottom that could ruin your day pretty quickly if you put your head in it and turned it on.

The way EM radiation works is that it's classified as ionising if it's sufficiently energetic and penetrative (read: high frequency/short wavelength) to enter human tissue and detach electrons in the atomic structures that make up that tissue.

The danger that ionising radiation presents is that detaching electrons in DNA can cause carcinogenic mutation i.e. cause cancer.

Radiation in high-frequency ultraviolet and above in the EM spectrum is considered ionising, and everything from low-freq UV below is considered non-ionising. This is because the energy carried by EM waves of lower-than-UV frequency is not sufficient to ionise atoms in human tissue.

I don't know the exact numbers on that, but I do know that the lowest threshold for ionising any atom is 3.9eV (low f UV) to ionise a caesium atom — and obviously we aren't made of caesium.

And this is backed up pretty well by the fact that if visible light were dangerously ionising EM radiation, life would not exist as we know it, and even if it made it this far, we'd all have a lot of cancer.

And since visible light is ostensibly higher frequency/higher energy than this "terahertz radiation" (presumably a buzzword for high freq microwave/infrared?) we can safely say that it won't hurt us in the way that a thousand chest X-rays might.

Now it's true that you can burn your food in the microwave and you can blind yourself with a laser, but this isn't because you ionised your chicken beyond core cooked temperature, it's because you subjected it to intense microwave radiation which excites the atoms.

Sufficiently intense visible light will burn your skin, but it won't mutate your skin. You get skin cancer from excessive exposure to ultraviolet, not from light.

Cellphones, wifi and 4G/5G have all been used by those who profit from scaremongering, but if you think about it, if any of it were true, there would have to be some new science to describe the mechanism by which they cause harm.
We need John to write more books about AI
Not bad for a net that's not even specifically trained to code.
It's not you. That is one terribly written article. It's even called out by wikipedia for the lack of sources. Can't understand why someone posted it to YC.

DMR is a mobile radio standard. Think of a private network of walkie-talkies, vehicle-mounted and desk mounted radios connecting professional users. Let me know if I can find a better resource for you.
Lindy[1] suggests that Harvard will outlive the United States.

Edit: [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
Israel is one of those countries. Actually France helped Israel with nuclear bomb technology (1953) and yet Israel has no nuclear power plant to this day.

France has been historically pro-nuclear for weapons, for dissuasion (after WW2) and for energy (no gas/oil/coal), But it changed on the energy side in the last 15 years. Not sure why the sentiment changed over time. Likely poor communication and education.

Protestors (Rainbow Warrior) were protesting against the last nuclear tests (weapons) in the Pacific ocean in 1985. It had nothing to do with nuclear energy production in France.

So yes France have had an anti-nuclear policy in the past 15 years leading to today where half of the 56 nuclear reactors are stopped. France needs to become pro-nuclear again, restart the current reactors ASAP, and start building more nuclear power plants to replace the aging ones.

On the military side, Those nuclear weapons are for dissuasion. There are no more live tests (all simulation).
Egyptian Tourism Authority – Nilometer on Rhoda Island
> Hancock is one of those people who sounds reasonable at first. Then as you keep going it gets worse and worse.

I'm reminded of someone describing Velikovsky, who wrote some pretty far-out books which conveyed radical views of archaeology and astronomy.

Paraphrased: "If you ask astronomers about the archaeology, they say it seems interesting enough, but the astronomy is bullshit. If you ask archaeologists, they'll tell you the astronomical theories are plausible but the archaeology is bunk."
Not a "transgender event", just a drag show
> because not only is it harmful in the immediate term

How is it harmful? I'd never heard of most of the megalithic sites he visited. He just goes around to these sites and points out things he finds amazing, and presents some of his theories on their origins. Whether a viewer chooses to believe his theories or not, really all he's doing is stimulating the viewer's imagination. Nothing he discusses will have any immediate physical effect on anyone's lives.

> discovered how lucrative falsehood

They are in the entertainment business, not the education business. They sell stories and fantasies. You're holding TV to a standard that might make sense for government sources.
Waxed cotton doesn't retain water and has been used for waterproof clothing for centuries.

It's heavier than other options, so it's not going to be popular for a lot of people in the outdoors.
.itch.io … Godot?
I found your example pretty amazing and tried to replicate the same:

Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp?

ChatGPT: In this scenario, the timestamp for Event B must be greater than the timestamp for Event A and less than the timestamp for Event C. This is because Event A happened first, followed by Event C, and then Event B.

Me:
But Event C is in between the other two

ChatGPT:
If Event C is in between the other two events, then the timestamp for Event B must still be greater than the timestamp for Event A and less than the timestamp for Event C. This is because Event A happened first, followed by Event C, and then Event B. Even though Event C is in between the other two events, its timestamp does not affect the valid bounds for the timestamp of Event B.

Me:
This is very confusing, can you illustrate with an example?

ChatGPT:
Certainly. Here is an example to illustrate the situation:

Suppose the three events have the following timestamps:

Event A: 15:00
Event C: 16:00
Event B: 17:00
In this case, the timestamp for Event B is valid because it is greater than the timestamp for Event A (15:00) and less than the timestamp for Event C (16:00).

Alternatively, if the timestamps were as follows:

Event A: 15:00
Event C: 16:00
Event B: 14:00
Then the timestamp for Event B would not be valid, because it is less than the timestamp for Event A.

I hope this helps clarify the situation. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Me:
But timestamp for event B is less than timestamp of event C implying that it occured before event C violating our initial assumption. Isn't this a contradiction?

ChatGPT:
You are correct that the scenario described in the question is contradictory. In the original question, it is stated that Event A is the first of all events to happen, followed by Event C, and then Event B. However, the example provided in the question contradicts this by saying that the timestamp for Event B is less than the timestamp for Event C, which would mean that Event B happened before Event C.

This is indeed a contradiction, and it is not possible for the timestamps of the events to be ordered in the way described in the original question. In order for the timestamps to be valid, either the timestamp for Event B must be greater than the timestamp for Event C (which would mean that Event B happened after Event C, as stated in the original question), or the initial assumption about the order in which the events happened must be revised.

It is important to ensure that the information provided in a question is consistent and does not contain contradictions, as this can lead to confusion and incorrect answers. I apologize if my previous answer did not adequately address this issue.

------- End of conversation ---------

This looks remarkable insofar that ChatGPT was able to spot the contradiction and explain it even suggesting means to remedy it. I'm genuine impressed by it.
> Oh. Interesting how you acknowledge the fluidity of the meaning of home but then impose your very specific formulation of it onto others

Just as you're imposing your specific formulation?

> Language changes. That's kinda its thing. If you wanna spend your life fighting the very nature of language you'll probably burn yourself out

I would very surprised if "homeless" as a term were not used orders of magnitude more than "houseless". The standard term quite simply is "homeless". You (and your acquaintance) are the ones fighting the language. You may win and your terminology may become standard, but language has hardly evolved to the point where the people using the (supposedly) old terminology are fighting the tide.

That said I find your acquaintance's position interesting. I don't, however, think that saying "houseless" instead of "homeless" is making the "language to be more accurate". "Home" has multiple meanings. With one of them your acquaintance is unquestionably "homeless" while with the other she is not.

For what it's worth, I consider homeless people as members of the community and that the city is just as much their home as it is mine. I don't find the multiple meanings all that confusing.