dvt

53 ms·

841.
by dvt 4y ago
> real people who are not billionaires are directly and immediately effected Hard disagree on this. Startups die literally every day, not to mention that we just had tens of thousands of layoffs by big tech companies. In my view, this wa
842.
by dvt 4y ago
> it has been given out for others to use, so again no, they were not bailed out Uh, that's what wealthy people do -- they give money to other people to make them even more money. This was so transparently a billionaire bailout (G
843.
by dvt 4y ago
Imagine thinking that billionaires actually bought SVB stock or held cash in there. Protip: their capital is tied up in dozens of companies, which were, indeed, bailed out.
844.
by dvt 4y ago
100% on the same page here, I plan on doing the same, and my sister does the same thing with her kid. Seems so weird to freely share intimately private pictures of children, family scenes, etc. on the open internet. They used to be tucked i
845.
by dvt 4y ago
Infinite money hack strikes again. The lie here is that this takes care of "households" and "small businesses"—no, this is a bailout ("backstop") that saves the richest of the rich (namely, VCs whose startups p
846.
by dvt 4y ago
The answers here are great, but I would also direct you to a more complete picture here: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortselling.asp Shoring is, financially-speaking, quite complicated and can be very op
847.
Cobble_stone – The texture of your childhood (2021)(github.com)
445 points by dvt 4y ago|103 comments
848.
Show HN: Lofi, a Tiny Spotify Player(github.com)
73 points by dvt 4y ago|48 comments
849.
by dvt 4y ago
> Why would a publicly and a privately traded company react fundamentally different to the economy? For one, selling shares in a private company is much harder (if not impossible, barring buybacks), so that's why valuations are rela
850.
by dvt 4y ago
Raising a down round when you're private is fundamentally different than the "market being down" when you're public ($AMZN is down due to macro factors). It means a few things: old investors are diluted which is very pai
851.
by dvt 4y ago
I found https://www.reuters.com/article/us-stripe-funding-breakingvi... which has no paywall.
852.
by dvt 4y ago
The most interesting thing here is that this is a down round (n.b. employee liquidations should've been priced into prior valuations). Imo, if they try to IPO this year, they're going to get wrecked. Stripe has been one of YC&#x
853.
by dvt 4y ago
The BBC offers pretty exhaustive RSS feeds ( https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/b006qykl.rss ) so I'm not exactly sure what ChatGPT even did here (Maybe the Dewey classification? Which is of dubious usefulness).
854.
by dvt 4y ago
Wakeup call: literally no one cares about the "protocol." Zoomers will still use TikTok & Instagram, millennials will still use Instagram & Twitter, boomers will still use Facebook. Bluesky is the classic solution looking
855.
by dvt 4y ago
Not sure what this has to do with anything; my point was just that the bar is much more accessible, generally speaking, than it was prior to software being a thing. It wasn't some grand thesis about the affordability of internet or lar
856.
by dvt 4y ago
Of course, but we're not talking about people in poverty, or that are homeless, etc. You're just bringing up a weird red herring that's orthogonal to my point--namely, that the bar is extremely accessible (esp. compared to ve
857.
by dvt 4y ago
Imo, this is completely false in the realm of software where anyone can launch a new app/project basically every other weekend and feel out what sticks & has traction.
858.
by dvt 4y ago
Absolute cope in the twitter comments, and it's weird seeing this on HN, which (at least historically) was a pretty entrepreneur-friendly forum. Yes, we get it, Zuck and Gates and Jobs were "lucky." But that doesn't mean
859.
by dvt 4y ago
This isn't new, but after a bit of prompt hacking, here's ChatGPT very confidently telling you the wrong height of the Statue of Liberty[1]. I made it off by 20 feet, so there's no way anyone would seriously know. [1] https:
860.
by dvt 4y ago
Not sure why the AI community has a weird obsession with being non-profit (or not). It's not like non-profits can't be evil, and it's not like OpenAI has done anything particularly egregious, either. What we do need is more
861.
by dvt 4y ago
SEEKING WORK | Los Angeles | Remote I'm an expert engineer and data professional interested in consulting and architecting data pipelines. At Edmunds.com, I worked on a fairly successful ad-tech product and my team bootstrapped a data
862.
The Euthanasia Coaster(en.wikipedia.org)
10 points by dvt 4y ago|3 comments
863.
Tulip Bulbs, Bored Apes and Bubbles [video](youtube.com)
1 points by dvt 4y ago|0 comments
864.
by dvt 4y ago
Looks like it was Midjourney.
865.
by dvt 4y ago
> the photon I shine on my wall with a flashlight did a few orbits around Jupiter too This is a very confusing way to essentially say that an integral of exp(−iS) is taken over all possible paths for the action S. Your flashlight's
866.
by dvt 4y ago
> The combination of multitudes of if-else statements forms a macro structure. It is this emergent macro structure that we call consciousness. As stated before the exact interconnect of this macro structure can't be fully articulate
867.
by dvt 4y ago
> But what chatGPT is, is not clear. I would posit that it is clear. It's simply a whole bunch of toasters put together (that is, a long list of if-then statements). If you're trying to argue that consciousness is merely a bu
868.
by dvt 4y ago
> Again you don't know what you're talking about. I think that's a bit uncharitable. You're acting like people haven't been grappling with these problems for thousands of years. Searle, for example, makes a prett
869.
by dvt 4y ago
> Is chatGPT a mathematical model of consciousness? Unless we reduce models of consciousness to purely stochastic processes, this is trivially false. And no one seriously reduces consciousness to probabilistic pattern recognition. > W
870.
by dvt 4y ago
Here's ChatGPT being wrong about me lol[1]. First, it confuses me with another person (also wrote a Meteor book), straight up telling me that I'm the one that's confused. It also makes up a book which doesn't exist.

More ›