Y
HN Search
Hacker News Search
new
|
comments
|
top
|
jobs
Atheros
searching Neon…
1.
▲
2.
▲
3.
▲
4.
▲
5.
▲
6.
▲
6 ms
·
1.
▲
by
Atheros
1mo ago
You aren't persuaded by what I wrote because I did not attempt to persuade you. You asked me to explain what I meant by "plausible deniability" so I did. > Neutral inanimate object or tool X is "bad" (we need law
2.
▲
by
Atheros
1mo ago
> In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording You have them. > then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not? No, they have plausible deniability if they use t
3.
▲
by
Atheros
1mo ago
They won't be thrown out. You'll surely be able to buy these in the future just like you can buy cell phones and fire crackers. But you can't take cell phones and fire crackers anywhere you want. You may not drive a car where
4.
▲
by
Atheros
1mo ago
The other devices do not feature plausible deniability when caught. The glasses do. That's the problem.
5.
▲
by
Atheros
1mo ago
Naaaaa I don't believe you. If you were actually concerned about objectification of women, especially as it applies to relationships, you would be 100 times more concerned about TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube than porn because the impa
6.
▲
by
Atheros
1mo ago
Maybe it's not mentioned because it's not supported by data and probably wrong. I think if that if porn were effectively banned outright, not only might nothing change, it might get worse. After all, we remove AI-child-porn from o
7.
▲
by
Atheros
1mo ago
Airtaxis can't retrofit suburbs just like cars can't retrofit 1850s cities. Imagine a city built around airtaxis and delivery drones. I think it is doable which means that they'll do it.
8.
▲
by
Atheros
1mo ago
Cities were originally built around walking. Later they expanded a little bit with horses. After that they were rebuilt for cars. They will be rebuilt again when transportation technology changes, at least for those that can afford it.
9.
▲
by
Atheros
2mo ago
They hacked the hackathon. You didn't.
10.
▲
by
Atheros
2mo ago
There are other weird things. If these become widespread, meta will know and be able to sell (or turn over to the government) a list of everyone you spend time talking to in public and private. Cell phone companies only have low-resolutio
11.
▲
by
Atheros
2mo ago
Evidence-based UI design maxed out in 1995 with the release of Windows 95. Evidence-based design was popular in all sorts of areas back then. Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994) I think is the gold-standard of set and costume design
12.
▲
by
Atheros
2mo ago
I still feel like there is a difference between Fractional Reserve Lending and this. 181 million shares are anti-owned : the traders don't want to own the thing, they want to anti-own it. Surely that has to count for something! If a s
13.
▲
by
Atheros
3mo ago
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03195929
14.
▲
by
Atheros
3mo ago
Social media is a service where people who know each other in real life communicate mostly about things happening to them personally. Online Publishing is process by which people, who largely don't know each other in real life, publish
15.
▲
by
Atheros
3mo ago
Because the phrase 'social media' was coined to describe a very specific thing: people who know each other in real life communicating online about things happening to them in real life. There were and are plenty of other words you
16.
▲
by
Atheros
3mo ago
Remembering someone's birthday and the names of their kids signals that you care about them. If Meta short circuits that then the signal evaporates.
17.
▲
by
Atheros
4mo ago
Their primary information source was a random sampling of Reddit posts which they admit were "coauthored with the AI (who clearly wrote the vast majority of it)." These were on long-dormant Reddit accounts that suddenly reactivate
18.
▲
by
Atheros
4mo ago
New revenue model idea: Charge $40/month on a person's credit card; a subscription. This buys the customer miles. Whenever you want to go somewhere, you use your miles. I think it would work based on the fact that people are willi
19.
▲
by
Atheros
5mo ago
You're right! I wrote it backwards! I swapped the 95 and 100% in the post above. My claim is that the cops in the article are walking around drug testing widely. Not literally everyone they see but if they are testing every white res
20.
▲
by
Atheros
5mo ago
I think it remains to be seen whether the various AI tools we have today are a net-negative or net-positive for society. Most inventions are a net positive: The steam engine, vaccines, chimneys. A few are net-negative: grenades, leaded gaso
21.
▲
by
Atheros
6mo ago
This has Base Rate Fallacy written all over it. If you had a drunk-driver-detection machine that output "positive" 95% of the time when the driver is drunk and output "negative" 100% of the time when the driver is not dr
22.
▲
by
Atheros
6mo ago
Your math teacher was wrong when he said, "You won't have a calculator" but he wasn't wrong when he implied "You need to learn this." If children are allowed to use AI as an omnipresent tool, what do you believ
23.
▲
by
Atheros
7mo ago
You misunderstood the article. Paul Graham isn't saying "Don't buy things based on brand", he's saying "Don't buy brand." It's perfectly healthy to use brand as a heuristic to help yourself more
24.
▲
by
Atheros
10mo ago
I really don't think any of that is true; it's just popular rhetoric. For example: "Buybacks concentrate cash in the hands of existing shareholders" is obviously false: the shareholders (via the company) did have cash
25.
▲
by
Atheros
10mo ago
> likely would have otherwise been put toward stock buybacks Stock buybacks from who ? When stock gets bought the money doesn't disappear into thin air; the same cash is now in someone else's hands. Those people would then wan
26.
▲
by
Atheros
10mo ago
Bad audio and bad foley doesn't get mentioned enough. I think it's why people are watching things with subtitles: the actors are on a blue stage that is completely silent having a quiet conversation and then the war happening ar
27.
▲
by
Atheros
10mo ago
Yes Even multiple exposures of one frame of film is, as far as I can tell, still generally considered one photograph.
28.
▲
by
Atheros
10mo ago
That doesn't make any sense. Did you mean double exposures?
29.
▲
by
Atheros
10mo ago
It does devalue the image indeed. He didn't cut out the jumper and paste it onto the sun but he did take images of the sun and paste them onto the jumper, using the jumper as a mask. Which seems to me like a distinction without a diffe
30.
▲
by
Atheros
10mo ago
So.. it's a composite and .. "transiting" isn't quite accurate either. hmmm :-(
More ›