Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jrm4's commentslogin

I cannot possibly oppose this take more; you're perfectly embodying the "slow frog boiling" mentality that must be fought everyday.

Curse, yell, fight. Never accept things just because they've grown to be common.


I’m all for opposing things where such opposition has a chance of making a difference. I just don’t see that here.

OP, pay no attention to the haters. Brilliant idea, especially given the slop out there. For my journaling, I've been experimenting with similar.

That being said, whatever I do I'm going to keep completely in-house, as in offline with local LLMs only, because privacy.


Good for them.

Not so good for taxpayers.

Basically irrelevant to taxpayers. Their salaries or triple their salaries will add up to a difference of a couple dollars on the average tax bill. Doge didn't actually cut any of the big expenses. It was only intended to cut the effective things.

It was never about saving money for the tax payers! They voted for this.

Which is also them

Please forward your next raise to me, since it will only raise your taxes.

> Please forward your next raise to me, since it will only raise your taxes.

Joking aside that's not really how taxes work (in the USA anyway).

A raise might move you into a higher top marginal tax rate, but only the money you earn above that new bracket threshold gets taxed at the higher rate, everything below the threshold continues to get taxed at the same rate as before.

Raises don't increase your taxes (though you might end up with a slightly higher top tax rate solely on the new money you weren't making at all before).


Meh, false; the cost of the disruption will almost certainly be comparable, if not outweigh, the money paid.

Systematic of so much clown techbro thought; idiots only see the obvious nicks and problems -- and even occasional absurdity -- in large institutions, and think they can come in fix everything.

It's just an extension of good ol' Chesterton's fence.


When I saw the headline, I genuinely could not picture what could possibly be meant by "A Golden Age Of Software In Which We Currently Reside."

So, I suppose it means SaaS-as-viable-income-maker. Which, well -- I suppose is fine if you can do that, no individual hate. But honestly -- funny enough -- it's pretty equivalent to me in terms of what is going on in hip-hop.

Rappers are making less money and also the art is improving back to a state that it once was in.

Seems like LLMs will actually help that as well.


There is no such thing as a "hallucination" that could be isolated from "not a hallucination" in a provable systematic way because all they do is hallucinate.

I'm extremely comfortable calling this paper complete and utter bullshit (or, I suppose if I'm being charitable, extremely poorly titled) from the title alone.


Arguably, all we do is something similar to hallucination; it's just that hundreds of millions of years have selected against brains that generate internal states that lead to counter-survival behavior.

I recently almost fell on a tram as it accelerated suddenly; my arm reached out for a stanchion that was out of my vision, so rapidly I wasn't aware of what I was doing before it had happened. All of this occurred using subconscious processes, based on a non-physical internal mental model of something I literally couldn't see at the moment it happened. Consciousness is over-rated; I believe Thomas Metzinger's work on consciousness (specifically, the illusion of consciousness) captures something really important about the nature of how our minds really work.


The Input of an LLM is real data. The n-dimensional space an LLM works in is a reflection of this. Statistical probably speaking there should be a way of knowing when an LLM is confident vs. when not.

This type of research is absolut valid.

An LLM is not just hallucinate.


We are in the vibe science era, it seems

Hot take: IPv4 might be techinically worse, but it's "politically" (in the classic sense of the word) better.

IPv6 essentially enables "universal internet IDs" for every device, which could streamline a lot of things, but enable a lot of weird surveillance/power balance issues that the cruft of IPv4 is actually incidentally helping guard against.

Again, I'm old enough to remember when e.g. the ISPs were going to try to charge per device in each household.


This hasn’t been the case in decades, every OS defaults to randomly generating the trailing 64 bits of your address and cycling through new addresses periodically. Your IPv6 address is only fixed to your device if you choose to configure it that way.

Since the network half (leading 64 bits) is as fixed as your IPv4 address was, and the host half is random and constantly changing, an IPv6 address is exactly as uniquely identifying as an IPv4 address used to be.


Afaik, at least Fedora has the privacy extensions disabled by default.

> Again, I'm old enough to remember when e.g. the ISPs were going to try to charge per device in each household.

I don't really see that coming again and if it does you can just do NAT66 just like you can do NAT4.


You and I can, yes.

But, network effects.


If ISPs would try charging per device with IPv6, NAT66 routers would just become an off the shelf product. You can just sell a black box to people that solves the issue.

But more generally, I think times have changed enough for per device billing not being a viable approach anymore.


What network effects? Like a sibling comment already pointed out, privacy addresses come standard on all consumer OSes.

"Yo dawg.."

Or is that finally a lost to time meme? :)


Was that the wrapper T-Mux?

Thank you, op, for bringing sanity to this whole thing.

Relatedly, this is why I think every "new" social media service that isn't Mastodon is barking up the most wrong tree with "take everything with you," you're essentially helping to build an even harder to erase social history.

Mastodon's individual server model, like email's, is better PRECISELY because each node is a point of "failure." That makes erasure easier. Which is good.


That's not true. Mastodon replicates all your posts to a bunch of other servers you don't control by design, which makes them harder to erase.

It's no worse than normal internet publishing, but it doesn't magically solve the erasure question.


Yep. And you still de-anonymise yourself with Mastodon when you buy hosting and a domain. If you use an existing provider, then you're back at square one and living in hope that the provider doesn't keep logs etc, or just decide they don't like you.

Nostr fixes both of these. So whilst you're at the mercy of relays storing your data, you can at least be anonymous.


No one owning your data isn't any better than everyone owning your data.

No disrespect to op, but I'm baffled as to how people keep coming up with ideas like this as if they are viable.

Google is never ever ever ever going to "pay to scrape." I'm genuinely baffled as to how people think it would possibly come to this.


Well, "let Google do whatever the fuck they want because they're rich" isn't exactly working out, is it.

presearch does. Anyone had experience with them?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: