harles

25 ms·

271.
by harles 5y ago
I think rearranging those words in almost any other order would’ve been superior: WLS, LSW, LWS
272.
by harles 5y ago
Repost. Also a pseudo science paper by a quack amateur in a fake journal. https://youtu.be/_9ZGcKA_Vk4
273.
by harles 5y ago
It also dates the paper - even if it was generally surprising 10 years ago, it won’t be today. Although I doubt papers with this language are standing the test of time anyways.
274.
by harles 5y ago
I’m always dumbfounded when almonds are pointed to as poor water usage. It’s an order of magnitude less egregious than meat and dairy on a per serving basis.
275.
by harles 5y ago
It’s not peer reviewed and never will be. So, you’re right to be suspicious.
276.
by harles 5y ago
Attempting to extrapolate off a sample size of n=1 is dangerous. I think that puts this in the “requires extraordinary proof” bucket. Especially when considering how many times we’ve looked but failed to find proof of extraterrestrial life.
277.
by harles 5y ago
Other than small bumps to bonus multipliers, big companies don’t share higher profits with employees.
278.
by harles 5y ago
I ran into this as well with NYT (grabbed a sub for election season only). You can cancel if you chat with someone during business hours - and immediately shoot down any attempt to to extend etc. Related, I really hate Apple taking a perman
279.
by harles 5y ago
Genuine question: why is this on Arxiv? It seems like a design document in the format of a research paper.
280.
by harles 6y ago
I confess I often shoplift on GitHub too. I grew up a hardened criminal, stealing server resources from SourceForge and it could only end one way. On a more serious note, this is why Google and Apple need regulation. The fact that they can
281.
by harles 6y ago
But they also won $500m+ from Samsung using the same system. Not to mention the defensive position it gives them. It seems like an overwhelmingly net positive for Apple.
282.
by harles 6y ago
We haven’t needed such courts for computers, the internet, or other algorithms. I fail to see how special courts are needed for AI. Our current legal system appears perfectly suited for AI - at least no worse than for other tech.
283.
by harles 6y ago
There’s a lot of throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks in this article. It also conflates things in its comparisons, like comparing AI to pharmaceuticals. We don’t ingest algorithms and a much better comparison would be to a no
284.
by harles 6y ago
SteamDB is a hobby project by two guys - I doubt they want the cost of a lawyer or headache of a legal defense. They may also get suspended by CloudFlare in the meantime.
285.
by harles 6y ago
Oh good, HN can finally settle all questions of religion and moralism.
286.
by harles 6y ago
This (both the article and the comment) makes me think of David Allen’s concept of “appropriate engagement”. Outrage is how to end up with a growing todo list each week.
287.
by harles 6y ago
Requiring cultural integration is a slippery slope.
288.
by harles 6y ago
In at least the communities I’ve been a part of, there’s a huge distrust of unions. They’re politically aligned and historically had ties to organized crime. These days, they’re often seen as at best self serving. Unions are also blamed (ri
289.
by harles 6y ago
Baseless assertions can be dismissed without evidence. Surely they wouldn’t send out an email to the whole company if they were overly concerned about keeping this quiet.
290.
by harles 6y ago
> Unfortunately, this all started to change after the U.S. put a man on the moon. While this was certainly a "giant leap for mankind," we lacked an understanding of what our next step would be. Is there supporting evidence of t
291.
by harles 6y ago
Exactly what I was thinking of. I’m having a lot of trouble understanding the value proposition to vendors here.