f33d5173

7 ms·

121.
by f33d5173 9mo ago
That's not why I bought stocks for the first time. I had extra money and wanted it to grow rather than sit around. I think the same is true of the majority of people. I don't think we're disagreeing with each other in that we
122.
by f33d5173 9mo ago
My working theory is that the ai bubble is caused by trump. People are too uncertain to want to invest in most industries, but they have to put their money somewhere, so they put it in ai stocks. Since the supreme court is likely to rule tr
123.
by f33d5173 9mo ago
You can for the most part evaluate intent based on actions. There are some actions which can have multiple possible intents behind them, where things get trickier. But in most situations, there is one primary consequence of something, and t
124.
by f33d5173 9mo ago
For the most part, you aren't meaningfully paying for content when you use streaming services. This has the effect of making it not cost effective to produce good content you enjoy, while still costing you money to pay for the services
125.
by f33d5173 9mo ago
They say > To get the cash, banks hand over Treasury notes and bonds, mortgages, and other securities, known as a “repo.” Then they get to borrow cash at face value. Does that meet your standards?
126.
by f33d5173 9mo ago
How would you blind it? This isn't pharmacy where you can hand out sugar pills.
127.
by f33d5173 10mo ago
It is. I heard about it on the radio.
128.
by f33d5173 10mo ago
I have to feel that an online booking system is substantially lower tech than an ai voice assitant chatbot, and makes it even easier to ruminate as you pick the time that works for you.
129.
by f33d5173 10mo ago
> when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong. No it isn't. The news media has a bias like anything else. They have traditionally been against all sorts of groups and topics that they are now in favou
130.
by f33d5173 10mo ago
> Python is also ugly, due to the required indentation As opposed to the not required indentation that literally everyone who writes code ever does anyways? > believe more in the ecosystem, specifically how the computer vision and mac
131.
by f33d5173 10mo ago
There are tens of much more successful robot vacuum companies. You do not buy roomba because of their capability in making robot vacuums, that already drove them bankrupt. If all you wanted was the brand name, you could have bought just tha
132.
by f33d5173 10mo ago
Self custody of cryptocurrency, for the vast majority of people, is riskier than putting their money in the bank. Most people lack the technical competence to keep their crypto secure, and the downside of losing access is much more signific
133.
by f33d5173 10mo ago
If they thought you were money laundering, maybe giving it back would be a liability.
134.
by f33d5173 10mo ago
Ordinary backups don't aim to replace the full service. When you have a stock of food, you don't have enough to last you a lifetime. You have enough to weather a storm. The equivalent for tech would probably be having an offline c
135.
by f33d5173 10mo ago
I had remembered it was "convert and copy", but cc was already taken by the c compiler so they shifted it down a letter. That might have been apocryphal.
136.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
At a certain point, employing humans will become pointless. Robots will be able to do everything a person can for cheaper. This will divide people into two camps: those who own enough shares of robot companies to live off of dividends, and
137.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
If you have an iphone on an old version of ios, you can install the latest version of some software you bought/downloaded for free compatible with that ios version.
138.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
My experience is that plugs from the same manufacturer as the device tend to keep holding tightly, but mixing makers is unreliable. Apple plugs in particular tend to slide out of my samsung phone really easily. I guess whoever speced usbc d
139.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
When companies compete, consumers win. Don't make the error of thinking that because they're doing it for selfish reasons, it doesn't benefit you. > If you had to bear the true cost, it would be $150. That might be true, b
140.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
A handbag is necessary for many people to carry their thing. Whether they choose a more or less expensive item to fulfill that function is a separate question.
141.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
That might be true of handbags, I am doubtful it is true of dolls. A handbag is a necessary accessory and has been for decades. The popular brands grew their way there slowly over many years. A company that explodes into popularity suddenly
142.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
He doesn't like it at least in part for lacking a concrete definition. Attempting to pin down what it means or ought to mean is therefore useful.
143.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
That's "rough consensus" as opposed to "consensus".
144.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
A consensus is by definition 100%. You can redefine the word in a specialist context, but that is what the word means.
145.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
A consensus is 100%. A rough consensus should be near 100%. 2/3 is a super majority. That's a very different standard.
146.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
He's speaking in a purely hypothetical sense. The title of the video even makes sure to note "in this example". If it turned this wasn't true of anthropic, it certainly wouldn't be fraud.
147.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
The idea that things can be right and wrong seems to be lost on you.
148.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
>If Google really wants to improve the software quality of the open source ecosystem, the best thing they could do is solve the funding problem. Google is not a monolith. If you asked the board, or the shareholders of google what they th
149.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
This has nothing to do with payment. Not deliberately infecting your users with vulnerabilities is simply the right thing to do. Giving something away for free doesn't absolve you of certain basic ethical responsibilities.
150.
by f33d5173 11mo ago
If you are deliberately shipping insecure software, you should stop doing that. In ffmpeg's case, that means either patching the bug, or disabling the codec. They refused to do the latter because they were proud of being able to suppor

More ›