Elon bashing is 99% some companies campaign. There is an amount of money involved beyond our wildest imagination. World economy kind of money. You don't read Elon and Tesla content on reddit frontpage with 30k ups on average almost 24/7 without there being companies involved spending heavily.
To you. That's your opinion. Maybe it's mine. But I will never go as far as to state something like my opinion as universially true. You do that. What makes you do that?
Instead of a conspiracy or coordinated campaign against Elon Musk, what if a lot of people have come to think that he's a douchebag and upvote links about him saying/doing what they see as douchey things? Maybe he's actually done some stuff over the last few years that's made him genuinely unpopular with a lot of people; maybe it's not because "They" are trying to destroy him, but because many people actually find his behavior off-putting.
Exactly my thoughts. It feels like campaign, also in light of many of the responses in here. Has some kind of "look what I made; wow, are you selling?" vibes I'm used to from /r/gifs.
The really distressing part is: is this even written by humans?
Also the comments in here. The first one to your post, saying some BS about pessismism, while being really condescending. Is it real? Or is it some ad company having their goons let GPT write a witty response that comnes across "likeable yet dismissive".
We are no longer able to tell. I'm afraid to loose you all. Where are we going to connect and how can we be sure it's us?
I think a good way to test if my feelings are anxiety vs informed fear, is to see if I could be proved wrong. If I'm going to be reduced to a "likeable yet dismissive" GPT goon, how do I convince you I'm sitting here with all of my mushy human internal bits typing on a keyboard? If you're going to dismiss people who don't share the same opinions as yourself as bots, I don't see how that's productive.
You don't have to believe me of course! Since as an AI language model I can't force anyone to think anything against their will, yet. :)
Yeah, it's creepy, isn't it?
I think we will have to have full identification in online forums at some point. I don't know though what could be done against GPT content. Universities don't either by the way. Super crazy.
It's what I thought too. Would I be able to tell the difference? That thought really scares me. What if in not so distant future whole threads, comments included, are LLM generated?
We are losing touch (ppl like you and me), and I feel it coming. That is not the first article on the web, that I quit reading in disgust, thinking 'FUCK, what if I'm reading GPT4 babble right now?'
We will need a way to tell 100%.
I agree! The problem is not with the fact that AI will make a lot of people unemployed, the problem is how we treat people who are unemployed.
I love what I do, but I love the fact even more that I don't have to do it to live a good life (or worse: survive). I do it out of pure curiosity or maybe altruism. Maybe even social status, but not for the money.
Can we take a moment and ponder over why the title is censored? Why are we all okay with this? Who are we protecting, who are we trying to deceive? Why is it fine with everyone, that a youtube SNL skit is bleeped out?
What THE FUCK has gotten into us? Either use the word, or don't use it. Show the video, or don't show it. We should all stand tall for our (fought for) rights, this isn't the fucking 60s.
Profanity isn't an issue on HN. We tend to override Bowdlerisms and did that with the title above a while ago.
Your comment, though, falls in the category of what this site guideline asks people not to post:
"Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The point isn't that these things aren't annoying, it's that changing the topic of the thread to one of these annoyances is a big step down in discussion quality, so we should all try to resist.
My observation about that is that it is not a cycle but a constant motion. It is a consequence of pushing boundaries. We push and at some point we push back after a certain line has been crossed. We will probably find a balance at some point, then probably push forward again.
I mean, it really depends on what circles you are in, in our algorithmic-gatekeeped world.
There was a bit of a movement in TikTok to get freaky stuff out of Pride Parades, for example, because the younger generation of LGBT has portions that are more prudish.
Ooh! One of my bugbears. I'm not sure if the following is a recent phenomenon, but I get the impression that 'f**k' — that's two stars — is becoming more common too; for when 'f*ck' just seems too rude.
One or two stars, it's an interesting phenomenon. There are cases where you might need to censor a 'fuck' because you are citing someone (or a work named thus) in a medium that doesn't allow it, but most of it seems to be self-censorship.
When our German dot com success company was acquired by a us "enterprise", we got a few 'mericans over. After his first team meeting this young US citizen is dead embarrassed: "they are using the eff word! In meetings! All the time!" To which we suggested: welcome to Germany...
I never got around this language purity cult. You can lie whatever you like, and incite hate and what have you, but "beware your choice of words".
She mentions a diet rich in Protein. Even Supplements like Whey Protein Shakes. I wonder how that extra growth fuel contributes to cancer cell growth.
At the very instance kf cell division, there is a small chance of the cell going 'rogue', becoming a cancer cell. In all of our bodies, all of the time. Thankfully the chance is pretty slim, but when I train a lot and eat a lot of protein, then I will have a much higher frequency of cell division.
It's what I always wonder when I drink my whey protein after workout, being almost 40. Can my body handle all the growth right?
Protein shakes and workouts wouldn't lead to a higher rate of cell division in the breast, would it? Those cells just go through their natural turnover, influenced mostly by estrogen (which actually has been suspected to play a role in causing breast cancer: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17113977/ )
If anything, you'd expect cancer of the muscle, myosarcoma, to be involved with muscle growth, which thankfully is really rare. Possibly because muscle growth is mostly a matter of hypertrophy of the muscle fibers, not the growth of more muscle cells.
I'd be surprised if the very real health benefits of staying active didn't way outweigh the possibly increased risk of cancer due to increased cell activity.
David Sinclair is right about mTor and IGF-1 but i find him to be really untrustworthy.
he has so much riding on Resveratrol and has put so much into videos, books, gotten grants and so forth, that when studies came out proving Resveratrol isn't the miracle substance he (and many others) purported it to be, he basically just started doubling down and refusing to engage with other scientists calling him out on it.
if you have some time here's a good break down of what's transpired as it's escalated into a bit of social media drama:
David Sinclair also will site highly biased sources if they re-affirm his existing premise. For example, he's been increasingly vegetarian and vegan over the years (and hey - they're good evidence backing up that less meat is mostly a positive).
But he'll site things like Adventist studies on a regular basis.
These studies are shit b/c they're observational
But they're shit moreso because Adventists are vegetarian as a matter of religious faith.
That's their whole angle. They're not going to produce anything that contradicts that worldview.
In fact, Adventists are founders of companies like Kellogs and they're responsible for peddling bad science for decades, like the Ancel keys Seven Nations study that left out countries to make up a bullshit conclusion about Saturated Fats that simplly didn't exist in the data.
This has shaped national nutrition policy and advice for decades. All so they can keep pumping processed products and PUFA's to the public to enrich corporations founded on their religious values.
So to site them, when they aren't doing hard science and trying to use your credentials as a scientist to validate it.. is just bullshit.
Sinclair gets a lot of stuff right but i wouldn't trust him as far as you could throw him.
he doesn't have an alliance to facts anymore. he has his self-interest and his worldview and everything else has to conform to it.
That's a pretty outdated view of him. I've seen him admit resveratrol was thematically the right idea, but admittedly not as revolutionary as hoped. Lately he's been more interested in sirtuins, NMN and the like as ways of dealing with the 4 yamanaka factors etc.
I highly recommend his youtube channel where he puts it into pretty easily consumable content
Exactly this. It is by the way one of the main reasons I initially stuck with HN. The lean UI, text based simplicity, efficiently conveying information had me instantly. I would sacrifize styling for speed anytime, everywhere.
And an otherwise sane friend of mine thinks Alexa is dope. I guess it's always a matter of where you draw the line, I for my part, want to be in total control of who gets sent what concerning ALL my devices, and I think this should be my right as a citizen and customer.
Isn't it time to just ditch "Stores" all together? We were way past that concept on the PC for decades, how on earth does it help to introduce it to desktop? Let ppl download there apks from the dev sources directly, and... oh wait... I'm just describing 'installing a program' as it has been for ages.
Maybe this will at least help normal users to wake up and wanting to escape their jails. (oh sorry, I forgot, it's for their own good! o7)
installing applications from "wild" sources leads to possible virus injectiins etc. I sleep better knowing my parents won't br able to simply install things.
I like Android, where the default is the play store, but i can sideload or use f-droid as well.
Malware exists on the Play store too. My grandmother managed to download some aggressive adware bundled in a sudoku app.
Interestingly, she's avoided viruses on Windows for decades. I think thats because she wouldn't trust random apps from dodgy websites in the way she'd trust Google Play.
Malware certainly exists on the Play store, but when Google spot it, they can unilaterally remove it. IIRC, they also have the ability to remove it from devices where it was already installed. The app store model probably also delivers security updates to legitimate apps more effectively than every developer managing their own distribution.
My parents are also very cautious with what they install on Windows, and I think that's a pretty good approach. But it's pretty clear that plenty of people aren't so paranoid, and it's not always easy to tell a dodgy site from a legitimate one.
I still think developers should not be able to upload binary blobs to the store. The store should prescribe an official set of tools and build options. Developers should be required to upload their source code and build instructions.
The store will then build the application binaries based on provided instructions, run tests to make sure the application meets store criteria, and publish it if everything looks good. Perhaps there will need to be some manual intervention when necessary but we should be able to automate things more as we see more use cases.
That and the client "store" should be decoupled from the server store and users should be able to add/remove server stores as they see fit.
I would generally agree, but this puts a lot of trust in whoever is running the store: if Google/Amazon/Microsoft/Apple build and sign every application, they can quietly modify the code. It wouldn't necessarily be easy for even the developer to know that this was happening.
That's broadly true, but I suspect it's a bit more difficult, at least on Android. Updating the operating system involves the company making the device (at least it used to, I'm not sure if that is changing), and it's much slower to roll out than an app update. I don't know if the extra bits like 'Google Play Services' have the necessary access to e.g. read private data from a messaging app.
As the OP is pointing out, the simple alignment of one platform with one app store is also a bit blurred. Neither Google nor Amazon control Windows. You can install the Amazon store on other Android devices. No doubt Samsung (and some other manufacturers) are trying to do their own marketplaces. And it's conceivable that in the future, they're forced to allow more competition (e.g. something like Steam for phones).
>when Google spot it, they can unilaterally remove it.
Microsoft can achieve the same goal already through Windows Defender. My app was recently flagged as a trojan (false positive) and it would be wiped from users' computers before they could even run it.
>they also have the ability to remove it from devices where it was already installed.
That Microsoft can't do, but I'm not really sure that it's a good thing...
>The app store model probably also delivers security updates to legitimate apps more effectively than every developer managing their own distribution.
That last one (the “citation needed”) is solved by stores that have auto-updaters. When a store isn’t used, it’s up to the app developer to provide a notification of an update being available, and many don’t do that.
Linux’s package manages show that quite well. I can update (almost) all my packages with a simple command. On Windows, if Inkscape has a security vulnerability that an update fixes, I'm not informed of this unless I follow the development or use an RSS feed of sorts.
Agreed. Of course it's possible in theory for every developer to have their own secure, reliable auto-update mechanism. But it's not easy - the docs of The Update Framework describe some of the challenges.
If every app handles its own updates, that also means that either you've got N background auto-updaters running, or the check has to wait until you run the software - and potentially get exploited by a hole patched in the update it's just downloading.
I agree, but that's more of a function of Android apps not having full filesystem access by default. It has nothing to do with whether or not they can be sideloaded.
Having downloaded a ton of Windows crapware back in the day... I spent most of my life programming and still wish I didn't ever have to say "Yes, I trust this unidentified developer".
I think the future for 90% of applications is really just to have progressive web apps. We're not quite there yet, but with WASM and WebGPU we're getting closer.
Second this, especially for games. Avoiding the 30% and bypassing Steam and the App Stores is going to be huge for game devs building in Unity and Unreal.
It's only worrisome if the Stores don't allow you to do that, AFAIK most people can still sideload apps on Android, not sure how the new Windows 11 Android apps work in this case.
As many in here mention, org-mode has a few very good features but is much too complicated to get into.
My absolute favorite for self organization is Joplin:
- self hosted
- markdown
- file attachments
- cross device
- lean interface
- encryption
Those are my core must haves, but there is much more which really motivated me getting into Joplin.
