just_once

7 ms·

1.
by just_once 4mo ago
They'll trade off the inflated numbers for the royalties.
2.
by just_once 4mo ago
But why would they agree? Coding is free (or at least $200 a month)
3.
by just_once 4mo ago
I thought code was free now
4.
by just_once 4mo ago
I don't think that's what player-coach means. It's not an archetype. It's a concrete role.
5.
by just_once 4mo ago
Yeah this is one of maybe 3 or 4 successful examples in the history of both players and coaches. Wonder why they haven't done it since the 70's....
6.
by just_once 4mo ago
Can anyone think of a single successful player-coach in the entire history of sports? Why would this be a good model?
7.
by just_once 5mo ago
So why is everything still working?
8.
by just_once 5mo ago
And you just scrape it straight from sec.gov?
9.
by just_once 5mo ago
I guess that's called napping
10.
by just_once 5mo ago
Amazing that this article and an actual comment from Ronan Farrow is this far down the list while...Scientists Figured Out How Eels Reproduce (2022) has 6 times the points.
11.
by just_once 6mo ago
Always good to name drop a near universally hated group.
12.
by just_once 6mo ago
I'm not sure what the flex is here. Is the idea that prototypes give the Permission Granter more fidelity into a proposal and therefore can make better decisions? Whereas before, with Slide Decks, the Permission Granter couldn't e
13.
by just_once 6mo ago
Nvidia, ByteDance, Tencent and OpenAI?! Wow!
14.
by just_once 6mo ago
It wasn't even that long ago that Trump fired the BLS Commissioner and nominated someone that would "restore GREATNESS" to the BLS. Putting aside the slop facade place atop the data....why would we trust the data?
15.
by just_once 7mo ago
This is turning into just another reality show. There are no adults anymore.
16.
by just_once 7mo ago
Proud of myself for recognizing this was a bot without having to inspect further than this comment!
17.
by just_once 7mo ago
They can do that anyway. What does that have to do with the content of the proposed law?
18.
by just_once 7mo ago
What does that look like? Can you describe your worst case scenario?
19.
by just_once 8mo ago
Most of the examples that you've used gain very little from added specificity. It's essentially linguistic laziness. That linguistic laziness is not identically consequential in all contexts.
20.
by just_once 8mo ago
Would you feel better if people said "people of African descent are much more likely to have a genetic disease sickle cell anemia"?
21.
by just_once 8mo ago
Name names, George. It's the only way.
22.
by just_once 9mo ago
No doubt. Interesting to think about why that is without assuming it's a character flaw.
23.
by just_once 9mo ago
Yep, it's a real problem. No dispute there. My intention isn't to argue a point, just to share my perspective when I read it. I read your response here to be saying something like "I noticed that people are misunderstood abou
24.
by just_once 9mo ago
I don't know if there's a word for this but this reads to me as like, software virtue signaling or software patronizing. It's bizarre to me to tell an engineer what their job is as a matter of fact and to claim a particular u
25.
by just_once 9mo ago
Hacker News is not representative of the average person in often very bad ways.
26.
by just_once 10mo ago
If AI isn't better than humans then there's no point.
27.
by just_once 11mo ago
Anyone normal knew what you meant
28.
by just_once 1y ago
It's the fact that it talks to you. Before this, only people did that. Now something else is doing it. That's going to break some brains.