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

It is not sarcastic.

Generally speaking, today, surveillance capitalism is the foundation of both our political culture, economy, and the tech industry that backs them.

In polite circles we call surveillance "user telemetry" and the like. It's not just Palantir and FLock; where does Meta's money come from...? Google's for that matter...?


No shade on your skills, but for most problems, this is already false; the solutions have already been scraped.

All OSS has been ingested, and all the discussion in forum like this about it, and the personal blog posts and newsletters about it; and the bug tracking; and theh pull requests, and...

and training etc. is only going to get better and filtering out what is "best."


A vast majority of the problems I’m asked to solve at work do not have open-source code I can simply copy or discussion forums that already decided the best answer. Enterprise customers rarely put that stuff out there. Even if they did, it doesn’t account for the environment the solution sit in, possible future integrations, off-the-wall requests from the boss, or knowing that internal customer X is going to want some other wacky thing, so we need to make life easy on our future selves.

At best, what I find online are basic day 1 tutorials and proof on concept stuff. None of it could be used in production where we actually need to handle errors and possible failure situations.


Obviously novel problems require novel solutions, but the vast majority of software solutions are remixes of existing methods. I don’t know your work so I may be wrong in this specific case, but there are a vanishingly small number of people pushing forward the envelope of human knowledge on a day-to-day basis.

My company (and others in the same sector) depends on certain proprietary enterprise software that has literally no publicly available API documentation online, anywhere.

There is barely anything that qualifies as documentation that they are willing to provide under NDA for lock-in reasons/laziness (ERPish sort of thing narrowly designed for the specific sector, and more or less in a duopoly).

The difficulty in developing solutions is 95% understanding business processes/requirements. I suspect this kind of thing becomes more common the further you get from a "software company” into specific industry niches.


The point is that the best solution is based on specific context of my situation and the right judgment couldn't be known by anyone outside of my team/org.

No, it is not lol.

You are literally spouting right wing book banner talking points.

"Suitable for children." Uh huh. According to your pastor.


You don't have to be a Bible thumper to think that certain things are inappropriate for kids.

Oh, for sure!

The problem is that the definition of "things that are inappropriate for kids" brought up by book-banners is almost always heavily inspired by religion. A book containing graphical violence and sex, like the Bible? Totally okay! A book containing casual day-to-day life, like mentioning in passing that little Johnny next door has two dads? Somehow completely inappropriate.


So your problem isn’t with “banning” books in schools per se. You just have a difference of opinion over which books should be “banned”.

They never said that. They just pointed out the hypocrisy of the situation, where certain topics normally deemed extremely controversial by those very figures become totally fine if they're brought up along the lines of their ideology. The comment contains no judgements on what should be included or excluded from their point of view.

I've got to interject. Clearly religious texts are of a different nature than gay kids books and teen romance novels. There may be some milquetoast books targetted by the religious but many of them are legitimately in the category of erotica. I've never seen a religious scripture that fell into the category of erotica, besides perhaps the Kama Sutra lol.

>The comment contains no judgements on what should be included or excluded from their point of view.

Let's be real. The types of people who bother to bring up the supposed hypocrisy of it are very much in favor of keeping the erotica, and may very well be in favor of pushing out religious texts because of "the science" or some shit. I know some people have said that they had trouble finding a bible in their library on YouTube. Somehow I doubt it was merely a case of them all being checked out either. If you ever catch a video of the people at the top of the American Library Association talking about these "book ban" issues it will all start to make sense.


> There may be some milquetoast books targeted by the religious but many of them are legitimately in the category of erotica

How much erotica are you seeing in the list linked above? Maybe a few could be kind of misconstrued for it, if someone was interpreting them with active hostility, but the far more obvious theme that ties them together is dealing with "heavy" themes in general - mental illness, discrimination, abuse, prostitution, suicide. Especially books that are overt in their themes and/or make the "wrong" conclusions in the eyes of the censors. You just set the rules for the argument by just filing all of that away as erotica, while most of it is anything but.

> I've never seen a religious scripture that fell into the category of erotica

That's because the hypocrisy that people argue about tends to concern things way worse than just some plain erotica. With their millennia-old standards for morality, religious texts from most religions often feature and endorse horrific acts and social standards that would without a doubt be instantly censored in schools much like the books above, if they weren't religious.

> Let's be real. The types of people who bother to bring up the supposed hypocrisy of it are very much in favor of keeping the erotica, and may very well be in favor of pushing out religious texts because of "the science" or some shit

"Being real" in this case seems to be a way of making a leading argument. I am on the side of those "types of people", and I know many more like that. The vast majority of people hold the stance of minimum book censorship, if at all possible. While I disagree with many religious books on most levels, censoring them would be equally misguided and pointless. At this point, they're important historical texts that frame a lot of how our society works. Anyone who wishes to access them should be able to do so, as should be the case with most other information.

> I know some people have said that they had trouble finding a bible in their library on YouTube

I don't know if YouTube content, especially from people who no doubt were looking for this specific conclusion, is enough to convince me that the most printed document in existence is suddenly impossible to find nowadays.

> Somehow I doubt it was merely a case of them all being checked out either

This is the crux of your argument, and you leave it up to subjective doubting? How many libraries have banned religious books as policy, rather than just having them vaguely be unavailable at some specific point in time?

Every day, hundreds if not thousands of these books are given away for free, on a range of anything from charity to forcing them down people's throats. The argument for this extreme of a level of anti-Christian persecution and censorship in the most religious country in the West isn't looking very good.


>How much erotica are you seeing in the list linked above?

I honestly don't have time to go do a bunch of research on 52 random books I'm definitely not going to read. All I can tell you for sure is that many of these books are inappropriate for children, and I'd object to any book with sex scenes being in any public school library. I have seen people give damning reviews, including quotes and photos of graphic content, from books they wanted removed from school libraries, and I was inclined to agree with them. I'm not even a Christian, but I want to pay for that even less than copies of random religious texts.

>I am on the side of those "types of people", and I know many more like that.

I am not going to give a blanket endorsement to LGBT in this way. I believe in live and let live, more or less, but I believe many of these people are more evangelical than any religion at this point. Anyway, on the subject of injecting their "representation" into everything, even content for prepubescent children, I am very opposed.

>The vast majority of people hold the stance of minimum book censorship, if at all possible.

I hope this is true, but I am not so sure these days.

>Anyone who wishes to access them should be able to do so, as should be the case with most other information.

At risk of going off on a tangent: As much as I love libraries and books, I don't believe in "information wants to be free" type rhetoric. People need to be paid for their work one way or another.

>I don't know if YouTube content, especially from people who no doubt were looking for this specific conclusion, is enough to convince me that the most printed document in existence is suddenly impossible to find nowadays.

I never said that it was hard to find in general. I said that some people reported that their libraries did not have these bog standard books.

>How many libraries have banned religious books as policy, rather than just having them vaguely be unavailable at some specific point in time?

As I said, I only heard some anecdotes. I believe this is still probably a rare occurrence but I can't prove one way or another. I mention it mainly so people can look out for it, not to prove anything.

>Every day, hundreds if not thousands of these books are given away for free, on a range of anything from charity to forcing them down people's throats.

Nobody is actually forced to own and read a bible, unless they are trying to do it to fit in with the religious folk. I consider that voluntary.

>The argument for this extreme of a level of anti-Christian persecution and censorship in the most religious country in the West isn't looking very good.

I personally witnessed some normal inoffensive Christian content censored on Facebook a couple of years ago as if it was gore. There is definitely a sizeable group of people which openly detests Christians and hopes to see the religion die, even though most Christians are very nice people and the religion is very important for Western values. Meanwhile, we have Islamic apologists hoping to excuse terrorism and continue importing millions of highly fertile, culturally incompatible invaders. The same people talking shit about Christian views on abortion will stick up for Muslims who hate all of us and want to take over, and LGBT, which the Muslims especially hate. Sometimes the absurdity of it all makes me suspect we live in a simulation.


> Aka consciousness is just a roundabout way to create an emulation layer for quantum effects.

Why?

Not _how would this be the case_—I'm curious _why_ this would be the case, i.e. if this represents an outcome that was selected for/climbed to,

what advantage does that offer entities with consciousness?


Tangentially related,

one of the best things my family did visiting London last summer was to take a private bike tour of the east end street art scene with Alternative London https://alternativeldn.co.uk/

Coming from SF the ride was blissfully flat and easy and our guide (the founder) was exceptional in every respect.

It's one of the two things we tell people going to not miss... the other being, mudlarking for Victorian pipe stems [guaranteed find] and maybe something more magical [rare but happens, a local showed us an Elizabethean coin and mediaeval pin she'd found]. We went, across the river a bit west of the Tate Modern, IIRC.


As a popcorn eating bystander it is striking to scan the top comments and find they alternate so dramatically in tone and conclusions.


This is the sort of headline you get when academic research must function as click bait.

There are very few X caused Y statements one can make about historical events in good faith or with good cause.


I knew what a glider was,

what I am personally still wondering is,

what is significant about making such a peculiar shape?

I find it difficult to believe that making a recurrent structure that translates in the grid (my lay language of doing what a glider does) requires a preposterously long structure like this,

so my guess was, is the excitement that someone made something extremely long, and there is some kind of race to make bigger and bigger structures with this behavior, akin crudely to the race to compute digits of Pi?

Or is it rather that no one has described a structure which "glides," with this preposterous number of cycles... which I would guess is coupled to the size?

Or is it rather that no one has described a 1D structure which "glides," at all...?

I would think that if what's desired is to find novel larger-scale structures, the best approach today would be to just fuzz noise of all kinds in large windows, let them iterate, and put the energy into the ML which evaluates the evolution of the world to categorize the results...


Posts like this would much benefit from a terse statement of context.

I've been waiting a long time for us to explore the moon.

I haven't been waiting for an Arch distro to release... whatever this is.


Agreed, I was wondering what an old Eclipse IDE version (Ganymede) was something people were waiting for?


I also clicked through a few times trying to get a clear description of what this is with no success.


"Start your Endeavour with a lightweight Arch-based, terminal centric system ready to personalise and a stellar community at your side"

- the front page of the site


The multiple meanings of many of the words in this sentence make it really poor at communicating what the site is about. "Endeavour" (with a capital 'E') is a proper name I associate with a space shuttle, and 'stellar' can mean 'having to do with stars'. So a first read for me leads to the conclusion that this site has something to do with space flight. And 'system' could mean almost anything. Maybe this site will let me personalize my own star system? All I can take away is that I'm not sure what this is, but clearly I'm not the target audience. Which I'm fine with.....


Rephrasing, Endeavour is something that is started with a terminal system based on Arch.

I know that's a cheesy way to say it's an Arch distro but I hope you notice how poor the phrasing is for someone trying to understand what they've been linked to.


I was confused myself, if only because when I saw Ganymede my first thought was the Eclipse release back in 2008.

I know I'm young enough to be too young to complain about getting old, but I still feel like I'm getting old every so often.


I thought this too. But if there was a probe sent out to Ganymede wouldn't we have arrived at it? If Ganymede (the moon) is arriving at Earth we have a whole other set of problems.


+1


Every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon.

Lemma: any statement about AI which uses the word "never" to preclude some feature from future realization is false.

Lemma: contemporary implementations have almost always already been improved upon, but are unevenly distributed.

(Ximm's Law)


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

Search: