wutbrodo

33 ms·

331.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I just switched from Chrome to Brave. The HN hivemind tends to jump all over Brave with criticisms of their "attention token" monetization scheme, but this criticism has never made any sense to me. I just....don't use BAT,
332.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I've found it critical to remember this truism when trying to extrapolate from internet posts: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most... This rings true anecdotally too. I was
333.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Yes, I was being glib, thanks for calling it out. As the wiki article you shared lays out, there was a decent amount of nonpartisan momentum behind narrower limitations on Tiktok, along with serious consideration of it as a national securit
334.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> Github api seems to force the default branch to main (on new repos) Jesus, really? I didn't pay much attention to the master nonsense because I figured it would be limited to projects who cared more about social performance than b
335.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> For an essay with that tone to really make its point it needs to be crystalline in its clarity and feel a real depth of reasoning, otherwise it will lose the reader. This has a lot to do with the community he's part of and still i
336.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> First, you would never, ever get into a car with that logic. The logic isn't applicable to any set of risks. As deadly as cars are, the risk of car crash death is much, much lower than 1/5000 per trip. It's probably clos
337.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Yea, agreed. In the distinction I was highlighting, the women I've dated were all operating in good faith, which is what made it possible for us to work together to overcome their temporary lapses of the ability to think clearly. I di
338.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> instance of an (attempted) "transformation of a radical viewpoint into one that's palatable to the mainstream" ... I again think this is misunderstanding the point. The "transformation" we're talking abou
339.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Did you read any of the article? The whole point is that it was specifically a radical space, founded and filled by radicals, with a (somewhat) coherent radical message. The fact that there was a shift to "we should have mildly better
340.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> This has made my life so much better. When I hear something someone says to me now I have an extra filter to run it through. It's no longer a choice just between the person being dishonest about the facts or being dishonest about
341.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
This is completely orthogonal to the article's thesis. The entire piece is about optics, and doesn't take any position. In fact, the only time the piece departs from its neutral tone is to decry the latecomers accused of sanewashi
342.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
The same way you support any causal claim, by controlling for confounders. What gives you so much confidence that a suboptimal microbiome is tautologically accompanied by "nasty and humiliating" IBS symptoms, to the degree that wo
343.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
It seems pretty obvious from reading the article in its entirety that the claim is that the inflammation is affecting mood directly, not via nasty and humiliating gastro symptoms.
344.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Just to be clear, "shockingly dumb" is in reference to the incorruptibility belief, not to your claim that it's "everyone". Though from your response, I think you probably understood what I meant despite the ambiguo
345.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Aren't there criminal acts which consist solely of communicating information to a willing third party? Eg sharing classified information with a foreign agent?
346.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> Everybody thinks they're incorruptible It chafes me a little to see this so often phrased as something "everybody" thinks. There are enough people who feel otherwise in my social circles that it's pretty easy for me
347.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
There's something hilarious about nitpicking a statistic out of a comment that's nothing but an unhinged rant.
348.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I don't see why it needs to be a binary descriptor. They can be a platform that's itself built on platform(s): in fact, most platforms are. Full vertical integration is not that common.
349.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
HN is worse than default subreddits when it comes to a handful of topics, and <any big tech company> is the most prominent category. There's plenty to criticize FB for, but the commenter community here gets truly unhinged whenev
350.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I agree, but was narrowly addressing the claim " I also see no reason, a priori, to 'blind' a vehicle to certain spectra of EM emissions". Cost is the a priori reason, albeit one that is potentially balanced by others.
351.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Sure, and they can't get drunk or fall asleep either. Even for taking for granted that AVs can't find an operating domain in which "non-pattern situations" are covered by failsafes, it's far from obvious that the n
352.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> Is it reasonable to assume AV will be lower-cost than rideshare? That's what the industry is betting on. I think it's reasonable in the steady-state: labor costs are expensive as hell. > vehicle purchase/maintenance&
353.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I don't think this question is even meaningfully-defined. There is no "the" point of comparison. The relevant point of comparison is whatever ride it's displacing. The rideshare explosion has already had a measurable ef
354.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Lol, what answer do you expect from a question like that? At a high level, Cruise is taking the same approach as Waymo, and a different one from Tesla: start with lots of hardware, HD maps, and a targeted operating domain, then try to scale
355.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> people are going to get injured and or killed by unusual real-world events riding in these autonomous cars I don't think anyone inside or outside of the AV industry is expecting that there will be zero injuries or fatalities invol
356.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
We already have a system that relies on assigning fault among the multiple parties involved in an accident. This same approach applies just as well to SDC accidents. It would be even easier than the status quo, given the much richer data S
357.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> I also see no reason, a priori, to 'blind' a vehicle to certain spectra of EM emissions The reason is simple: cost. The goal isn't to build a proof-of-concept safe AV, it's to build one that meets the safety bar _a
358.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Fallen out of favor in what sense?
359.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
You're responding to the wrong comment. I'm clarifying what the other commenter said, not championing his point. That being said, your comment still doesn't make any sense. The people who would be substituting prior infection
360.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Hm I was thinking that, but that would be just as true for airplanes and paramotors going at high horizontal speeds at low altitude. Or perhaps the issue is that, given the lack of protection in a jetpack, the lowest altitude at which you c

More ›