ajkjk

12 ms·

1.
by ajkjk 5d ago
Well that's if you believe > Which, of course, means that non pet owners are now subsidizing pet owners and the damage and wear and tear that pets cause But most people don't think that all. And I notice that you ignored all th
2.
by ajkjk 5d ago
I guess my stance is that: 1. yes, it will require a widespread shift in people's beliefs for anything to change significantly. So such a shift is necessary . 2. I also personally believe that such a widespread shift is sufficient t
3.
by ajkjk 5d ago
I don't think you understand my position. I don't think I've seen anything like coordinated democratic action attempted in my lifetime (not in the US at least). Everyone doesn't believe it's possible so they don&#x2
4.
by ajkjk 5d ago
it's the opposite? the person you're replying to is exactly correct... the giant delusion that sustains this whole shitty thing is the public's disenchantment with politics; everything feels bad but no one seems to believe in
5.
by ajkjk 6d ago
yeah, basically what I said.
6.
by ajkjk 7d ago
Don't follow. But you omitted the 'conditional on' part so I'm not sure you did either?
7.
by ajkjk 8d ago
really? conditional on them actually being neurosurgeon, I'd place a lot more stock on it than on a random headline based on their authority alone. So I, for one, care. Argument from authority is a bad thing specifically when it's
8.
by ajkjk 9d ago
Most people don't care about that at all
9.
by ajkjk 9d ago
I think it is how people apologize normally because it's a norm, yes, but it's to everyone's detriment. They don't like it, the people receiving it don't care about it, it's not a real apology, it's just a
10.
by ajkjk 10d ago
ya it's cheap sympathy-raising and should be condemned
11.
by ajkjk 10d ago
The owner's instagram apology post has a bunch of "I did not understand..."s and language about disrespect, etc-- which makes sense, they're trying to get out of trouble, but it is in a way dishonest. Things would be bet
12.
by ajkjk 11d ago
I did it on purpose! In one sense it's really hard, of course, but in another it's simple, right? Simple enough that if a bunch of people who skim this a try plus their personal touches, I could easily imagine one of them succeedi
13.
by ajkjk 11d ago
From my vantage point the decentralization stuff distracted them from winning, but I am too ignorant to be sure if that's valid or not. The ideal twitter clone does, unfortunately, have to clone the "virality" aspect, includi
14.
by ajkjk 11d ago
I feel like the answer is not that hard... someone just needs to make a copy of the basic functionality of twitter with better intentions and not owned by Musk et al. If they are sufficiently trustworthy and competent in how they do it, I r
15.
by ajkjk 15d ago
Yes, it must be a sinister act of manipulation and not what it appears to be on the tin.
16.
by ajkjk 15d ago
either one, yeah
17.
by ajkjk 15d ago
Stereotyped as less of a STEM country, probably accurately, so it seems newsworthy plus gives people hope and optimism to hear about cool inventions from there.
18.
by ajkjk 16d ago
Your mistake is parsing rhetoric as anything other than made up.
19.
by ajkjk 16d ago
You're one of those people who needs to expand their worldview, then. I live in a progressive city in North Carolina and constantly find that when people have never heard of them things that every HN reader (and probably every Bay Area
20.
by ajkjk 16d ago
Presumably a lot of it is in a better evaluation function. That is, when searching the tree, a better analysis of whether a specific position is beneficial and by how much. After all most of the tree searches do not end in checkmate, just i
21.
by ajkjk 17d ago
strongly agree except that "million-dollar business" is such a low bar these days that I might argue a larger number is needed for the point to stand. People are reacting foolishly to the word shouldn't here. It's not
22.
by ajkjk 17d ago
Made no claim that people haven't heard of ChatGPT. Said they haven't heard of OpenAI.
23.
by ajkjk 17d ago
I feel you like you cited that as an example of people knowing companies behind things and you don't realize that very many people do not know that the same company owns Facebook and Instagram... Corporate structures are things you kno
24.
by ajkjk 17d ago
No, there are people who will say "ask Chat to explain it to you" in reference to ChatGPT.
25.
by ajkjk 17d ago
I think you are wrong, but of course it's just a guess.
26.
by ajkjk 17d ago
well probably even your friends know a lot more than "most people". But walk into a random town and ask a random person and I'd wager they'll be about at what I described, on average.
27.
by ajkjk 17d ago
I think you're right, but I'd add that... if this wasn't obvious to you without being told, you should really question your worldview a bit. A lot of people think that chat.com is an AI called "chat". Most people do
28.
by ajkjk 17d ago
it is on the front page
29.
by ajkjk 17d ago
the latter (ish; it may not make a difference in any practical case)
30.
by ajkjk 17d ago
the part where they didn't want the Anthropic person credited even though they deserve credit is also particularly scummy. Corporate greed over common decency.

More ›