scott_w

25 ms·

391.
by scott_w 1y ago
We can start from the linked article?
392.
by scott_w 1y ago
> If a human being talked confidently about something that they were just making up out of thin air by synthesizing based (consciously or unconsciously) on other information they know you wouldn’t call it “hallucination”: you’d call it “
393.
by scott_w 1y ago
Fowler is not really redefining "hallucination." He's using a form of irony that emphasises how fundamental "hallucinations" are to the operation of the system. One might also say "you can't get rid of c
394.
by scott_w 1y ago
Except your only example was nonsensical on the face of it. > Yep, even if I made it my life's mission to run a formal study on programmer productivity (which I clearly won't) that wouldn't save the argument from nitpick
395.
by scott_w 1y ago
I’m not sure it would. Remember that the prosecutors in this case were outright lying to the courts about the system! When you hit that point, it’s really hard to even get a clean audit trail out in the open any more!
396.
by scott_w 1y ago
You conflated, misrepresented and simply ignored so many things in your statement that I really don’t know where to start rebutting it. I’d say at least compare SpaceX to NASA with space exploration but, even then, I doubt you have anywhere
397.
by scott_w 1y ago
> sometimes we have to lock people down and physically prevent them from harming themselves So where does my statement suggest we should make locking people up for their own good the norm? I can come up with even more mundane examples of
398.
by scott_w 1y ago
> The thing is, we can sit here on HN thinking we’re so clever This was the precursor to the statement you objected to. It seems pretty central to my point: we only have access to public data and have no experience leading any military c
399.
by scott_w 1y ago
I’ll take a real world example where I watched someone start to climb over the side of a bridge. Luckily my words stopped him but I did consider whether I should pull him back and pin him to the ground for his own good. Is your position tha
400.
by scott_w 1y ago
> sometimes we have to lock people down and physically prevent them from harming themselves I highlighted the word you missed, deliberately in my opinion, as it completely changes the meaning to exclude your frankly idiotic assertion.
401.
by scott_w 1y ago
> Historically they are rarely very good at being able to tell how the next war is going to be fought. Is the fact they aren't good at knowing how the next war will be fought because they're bad at it or because that's a h
402.
by scott_w 1y ago
> You just have to inform user of the risks Warnings aren't always enough, sometimes we have to lock people down and physically prevent them from harming themselves. It's not always people being stupid. I recall reading an arti
403.
by scott_w 1y ago
At full capability, yes, it is. However if you don’t have the updated targeting data then my understanding is that it loses a lot of those advantages. And even if it didn’t, it may still be a case that it’s more cost effective to buy higher
404.
by scott_w 1y ago
A big difference is you can tell internal users to update or else. It’s not free and should be reserved for good business reasons, but it can happen on a shorter time frame as you have the internal organisation to enforce it. It’s not reall
405.
by scott_w 1y ago
But even with that you need to find targets, for which only piloted stealth jets work. Then at that point, you may as well drop some ordnance on it while you’re there. The thing is, we can sit here on HN thinking we’re so clever but ACTUAL
406.
by scott_w 1y ago
By supporting your bombers to blow up the launchers and kill the pilots. Iran had fleets of drones but still rolled over when Israel blew up their air defences. I think they might know something you and I don’t about the limitations of dron
407.
by scott_w 1y ago
You’re overstating how good guided munitions are. They’re not magic. The further out from the target, the harder it is to hit that target. There’s a reason the USA flew a B2 stealth bomber into Iran instead of lobbing munitions over. And th
408.
by scott_w 1y ago
That’s because Russia and Ukraine don’t have the capabilities of NATO. Russia is completely incompetent. Ukraine was incompetent and has spent most of the war trying to remedy that. NATO doctrine is to start by controlling the skies. I can
409.
by scott_w 1y ago
> Beyond that, is there a viable competitor available for an US allied nation to purchase? As I and others point out: the problem is if you do something Trump doesn’t like and he cuts off the extra features that make the F-35 better than
410.
by scott_w 1y ago
> You don't need a jet to attack ground assets, It makes things much easier and you can project much further than with artillery. Just ask Iran. > and you most definitely can't rely on a jet to defend against rocket artiller
411.
by scott_w 1y ago
The two aren’t separate. If your jets can’t defend your ground assets then they’re likely to go boom. One way you can do this is to send your jets into enemy airspace and make their ground assets go boom, forcing them to keep jets in their
412.
by scott_w 1y ago
Yep, I think people arguing “there is no kill switch” miss this point. There doesn’t need to be if the lack of updates makes an F-35 an expensive, inferior version of a jet they could buy elsewhere!
413.
by scott_w 1y ago
I think this is the biggest factor. Comments about the USA potentially cutting access to software updates could have cooled interest. The UK is the only country that can operate F-35 semi-independently (our government bought the system to r
414.
by scott_w 1y ago
I think you’re missing something huge: when you’re under attack, YOUR OWN AIRSPACE can become hostile if you don’t fight to gain air superiority. NATO doctrine prioritises air superiority for good reason.
415.
by scott_w 1y ago
They definitely should have shown an example, or referenced something else that backs up their claim. I think it was you who made the good point that, when it comes to data usage, the mean may well give you more meaningful information becau
416.
by scott_w 1y ago
To be fair, the report explains their reasoning: they state the mean is too sensitive to outliers. Now, I do agree it would have been nice to demonstrate this, however it could be genuine.
417.
by scott_w 1y ago
> The correct way to setup an analytics tool is to point it to an analytics db that is a replica of your main DB. It's a pretty common part of an HA setup to replicate your primary to an actual hot read replica and a cold analytics
418.
by scott_w 1y ago
> Having the agent plugged into the DB doesn't mean the agent can see everything in the DB. If that plug includes an automatic "where current user has access" filter, then the agent can't know anything the user can&#x
419.
by scott_w 1y ago
> If humans weren't that exceptional we would just go and destroy nature everywhere it benefits us with no thoughts about the future or how this could ever hurt us Let’s start here: humans are literally in the process of doing this
420.
by scott_w 1y ago
> So why do you think it is fine for the Dolphins to say they are more intelligent but not fine for Man to say they are more intelligent? You are saying us humans should stop saying that, why I didn’t say that and neither does Douglas Ad

More ›