That seems like a bad faith reinterpretation of the context that the question was being asked in. The statement that the question pertained to was, "in any story not about this Linux kernel fiasco people generally cast them as the bad guys."
If a lot of money is involved, it's only a matter of time before all oversight is corrupt. Similarly, you can safely assume all data that is on an important (big money) topic is fake.
Nothing that has worked yet. to say it hasn't worked yet is very different than saying nobody is doing anything. All we can do is try to figure it out. If you aren't doing something, look for something to do. Everyone I know is doing something. How are you going to figure out what will work except for trying things and seeing what you learn from that?
"Blaming" people for not being successful yet is very different than blaming them for not doing anything at all.
> So me saying I am not going to give them money until they start selling burgers is a meaningless too them.
Sure, but that's because you're you. No offense, but you don't have a following that people use to decide what fast food to eat. You don't have posts about how Taco Bell should serve burgers, frequently topping one of the main internet forums for people interested in fast food.
HN front page articles do matter. They get huge numbers of eyeballs. They help shape the opinions of developers. If lots of people write articles like this one, and it front pages again and again, Anthropic will be at serious risk of losing their mindshare advantage.
Of course, that may not happen. But people are aware it could.
This is speculation, but given how cozy he is with Israel it’s not “nonsense”. And the rest of the post is verifiable, despite it being described as “mostly nonsense”.
Words are cheap and politicians often do much different than they promised. Remember when Trump said no new wars? Remember when he said we were done in Iran after dropping the bombs, and now intervention is looming?
I don't think the parent said that Siri wasn't bad, on the contrary it sounds like they agree.
Their point is that if Apple totally scraps the current, bad, product called "Siri" and replaces it with an entirely different, much better product that is also named "Siri" but shares nothing but the name, people's perceptions of the current bad Siri will taint their impressions of the new one.
I'm sorry for whatever cynicism leads you to believe this. I don't believe there is an "astroturfer" problem with siri, and that is mostly what I was responding to. Sorry you missed that.
They are currently $1 per disk, are reusable, and last a very long time.
It is likely they are still being manufactured, too.
Even if the price were to double, I suspect that someone with the skills to make this has a sufficiently well paying job that the price of a hundred disks per year would not be a problem.
The potential for overeating chronically has not been possible for most people, in most societies, throughout most of human history. Our current caloric abundance being available to literally everyone in Western society is something unique to the past century.
If you eat 1% fewer calories than you burn every day you will die. You will also die if you eat 1% more calories than you burn every day. Is it possible, really, to suggest that the availability of calories was 100% of the daily requirement of our ancestors, and not 99%, or 101%? That is a level of accident that exceeds belief.
It is incredible to think this precise balance could be maintained by anything other than a closed loop of biological control. How would the wheat on a medieval farm know how much to grow each season? If it was off by 1% consistently, everyone would have died... unless they had a mechanism for satiation.
How do you think our microbial ancestors maintained internal salinity, through the limited availability of salt in the ancient ocean?
You will also die if you eat precisely the amount of calories you burn every day.
There exists something called a "feedback loop", something common in biology. You would probably find it interesting, you should look it up.
Basically, it means that if you try to chronically eat, say, 1% more calories than are burned, your body will try to burn more calories to compensate.
I'm not sure I grasp the rest of your comment, could you try again to explain? The wheat farm your ancestors worked did not provide the excess of cheap calories available to the present day American.
That is the intended conclusion of my post, that body fat is obviously regulated biologically, and suggestions that changes in obesity rates are due to the increased availability of food (implying that it was regulated by some sort of precise cycle of starvation in the past) or individual choices (implying that most people are measuring portions and keeping a running tally) are in conflict with that.
In reality there were times of excess and times of shortages far more often in past times. In times where there were plenty of items that didn't last you over consumed. By late winter you were getting lean.
>If it was off by 1% consistently, everyone would have died...
You do realize that starvation was a massive killer in the past. Everyone didn't die, but the young, the old, and the weak sure did.
It ends up being the opposite. Rather than the body having a satiation response, it controls the metabolism.
If you've ever fasted, you've experienced this. You just don't have the energy to do much other than sit around when you are hungry.
Ancient societies realized this, it's why they'd give out calorie dense meals to their farm labor. For a serf in England, harvest time was often met with a very calorie dense meal. For roman soldiers, they had a diet of meats and cheeses.
I'd also point out that you don't need to have exactly 100% daily calorie intake. You can go a week with just 99% and catch up with 101% the next week just fine.
My newer desktop (2020 era with a 3070) has 4x 4k monitors attached running XFCE and I have never noticed the lag you speak of. I don't run external monitors on it but my thinkpad x200 with a core 2 duo also does great with xfce.
I have no doubt the issues you speak of exist in theory but they do not seem to matter in practice.
You shouldn't notice lag. On modern Xorg the only round-trip is context switches between server and compositor, because the only thing what is shared is texture dma-bufs (there is inefficiency in mesa code for GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap extension, but it is other story). And if dma-bufs is working (Xorg needs to test and pull one MR) you have buffer direct scanouts as in wayland.
As someone who runs modern XFCE on a core 2 duo I still have without noticable perf issues, the problems the parent talks about are theoretical and not observable.
reply