lapcat

14 ms·

301.
by lapcat 6mo ago
I think you missed the point. The entire article is about specialists: astrophysicists. The problem with AI is that specialists are delegating their thinking about their specialty! The fear here is that society will stop producing specialis
302.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> ... on a website owned by the VC that invested in the developer. Thanks for disclosing the financial conflict of interest, but this doesn't change the self-promotion factor.
303.
by lapcat 7mo ago
This blog post is self-promotion, essentially an advertisement for a paid product, Lubeno, submitted by the developer of the product.
304.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> Hope that helps. It doesn't. I think that helping the less fortunate is cool, and launching people to the Moon is lighting money on fire for utopian and inevitably corrupt money transfer schemes.
305.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> It’s only a fallacy if the purported facts are fallacious. These don't appear to be the words of someone who understands what the post hoc fallacy is. In any case, the subject is not "capitalism and technology" generally
306.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> “Just redistribute the wealth bro, it’ll work this time bro I swear let’s just do a redistribution”. Bro, have you considered that NASA, the topic of this submission, is government redistribution of wealth via taxes?
307.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> Is the problem inequality or rather poverty ? Because those are not the same thing. According to the OP, inequality: "Regardless of whether this particular mission is perfectly planned, this is precisely the kind of thing that
308.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> Global rates of poverty are 83% lower than they were in 1969 when we landed on the moon. Obvious post hoc fallacy
309.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> if we go all the way in and establish permanent economic activity and eventually settlements in the space near Earth and beyond. Could you please explain exactly how these would help to stop war and inequality? As far as I can tell, sp
310.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> I think you would have to be quite cynical to think that progress in spaceflight over the past 60+ years hasn't had a positive impact. Spaceflight aside, how exactly has humanity started to outgrow war, inequality, and climate mis
311.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> You don't solve these problems in a single step Obviously, but there's no evidence that the previous Moon missions were a step toward solving the problems. > notice how space imagery and analogies pop up every time people
312.
by lapcat 7mo ago
This is absurd. Have you heard of Rachel Carson's 1962 "Silent Spring"?
313.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement. How do you figure? The previous Moon missions certainly didn't accomplish that.
314.
by lapcat 7mo ago
You won't see it if Reduced Motion is enabled in Accessibility Settings.
315.
by lapcat 7mo ago
No, you're missing the point, because the views of the people to be laid off are irrelevant. Again, the stockholders own the company, not the CEO. If CEOs start chaging their tune on AI as soon as their own jobs are at stake, that woul
316.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> If I was going to reduce labor costs by +1M/year, I would rather eliminate 1 CEO then 10 radiologists. This is a false dichotomy. Why not both? I think it's a bit strange to hope or assume that an AI CEO would somehow preserv
317.
by lapcat 7mo ago
Do you think this would help? The CEO is an employee of the board of directors and the stockholders. An AI CEO would no doubt be as ruthless as a human CEO, if not more so. In other words, I wouldn't anticipate any improvement in CEO b
318.
Google removes Search Engine Land article after false DMCA claim(searchengineland.com)
5 points by lapcat 7mo ago|0 comments
319.
by lapcat 7mo ago
The analogy would be that you always get upvoted and never get downvoted, which in my experience is definitely not the case on Reddit or Hacker News. I would have downvoted your comment, except you can't downvote direct replies on HN
320.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> It's really nothing new. I disagree. What's new is that this flattery is individually, personally targeted. The AI user is given the impression that they're having a back-and-forth conversation with a single trusted frie
321.
by lapcat 7mo ago
The footnote 2 link doesn't actually work for me, for whatever reason. What does it say?
322.
by lapcat 7mo ago
I don't see where it says that. Can you provide a direct quote?
323.
by lapcat 7mo ago
What's your point? Of course processors have gotten a lot faster between 2012 and 2025. I was talking about the form factor of the machine.
324.
by lapcat 7mo ago
The 2013 trash can was the end of the Mac Pro. It was never the same after that. The 2012 and earlier Mac Pros were awesome. I had a 2010 model. Here's what I loved: • Multiple hard drive bays for easy swapping of disks, with a side pa
325.
by lapcat 7mo ago
No. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47523983
326.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> ~50000 engineers aren't conspiring to close all tickets that way. I didn't say that either. It's happened to me only sporadically, but multiple times. I agree with you that teams within Apple manage their own tickets. Pe
327.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> you can say put "please verify whether it is still present" via bot before doing so. Which apple did No, that's not what Apple did. They said, "Please verify this issue with macOS 26.4 beta 4", a very specific
328.
by lapcat 7mo ago
Not my tickets specifically. I don't think they're out to get me individually. On the contrary, this is a common practice, which affects many developers. I just happen to be relatively loud, as far as blogging is concerned.
329.
by lapcat 7mo ago
What specifically do you claim I'm making up?
330.
by lapcat 7mo ago
> But the mistake OP is making is assuming this one thing that annoyed him somehow applies to the whole Apple org. Most issues were up to engineers and project managers to prioritize, every team had their own process when I was there. Ex

More ›