> Email mods (<hn@ycombinator.com>) if you have concerns
Why waste your time? Dang or Tom will link you to the same pseudo intellectual analysis and claim there is no bias.
Meanwhile, we have eat good food and iran protests plastering the front page, while the news of a an unprovoked murder of a US citizen by masked agents of the state gets buried with flags.
HN has other objectives, specifically "intellectual curiosity". And I'm well aware that this results in a strong status quo bias, something I'm quite uncomfortable with these days:
I'm describing the system as I understand it. (I'm not a mod, or a founder, just a long-time participant in HN and observer of it, as well as numerous other fora over the past 40-odd years.)
The Minnesota ICE murder story has had multiple submissions and discussion. The Palantir-founder tweet-based story only one AFAIU. HN deprecates repeated discussion of a given topic.
(Dang and other mods discuss this point often.)
Again, I'm describing HN's dynamics, and how to intervene effectively should you care to do so. I'm not defending it, though I'll grudgingly admit it works pretty well much of the time. Politics (of virtually any stripe or national focus) tends to be far more failure-prone, however.
(That article does say this kind of "dragnet" search warrant is, in theory, precluded by the US Constitution. One can ask a certain 6-year old child in Minnesota who just their mother to masked constitution-men what that constitution means).
It's happened before, although with no loss of civilian life.
In 1998 neither India nor Pakistan were considered members of the nuclear warhead club.
Then India detonated 5 warhead sized kiloton and sub kiloton class thermonuclear (fusion / hydrogen) weapons .. and within 20 days Pakistan responded with six atomic tests (non fusion, larger than warhead size).
The interesting thing about that exchange is that India suprised the world intelligence community pants down with capability and execution, and Pakistan's speed of response was equally suprising.
Despite the spectacle of rapid cross fire of eleven nuclear weapons and tense international responses the small nuke treats didn't escalate into anything larger .. and likely served to keep heads a little cooler wrt both India and Pakistan.
All up there has been > 2,000 nuclear detonations across the globe, some definitely intended to intimidate or otherwise push the envelope of possibility.
In that light another small nuke that avoided civilians and had a military target is unlikely to escalate although it would certainly cause a collective intake of breath and give pause.
I said Russia dropping a nuke on a Ukranian military site will not escalate into a nuclear war. I say this because so many people assume that it would and it makes no sense.
Ukraine might have some possible retaliatory options in that case though. Far from ideal, but they could for example load a big ship full of explosives and blow up much of St Petersburg.
Of course, other options such as biological weapons have been explored in the past. Ukraine wouldn't necessarily have to invest all that much to prepare retaliatory operations capable of killing millions of Russians in the case of a nuclear attack.
The only problem with such less orthodox means is that they're almost necessarily covert, and therefore can provide limited deterrence. "We have ways to impose immense costs if necessary" just doesn't sound that scary when the means are a secret.
If Russia rolled into the United States tomorrow and deposed Trump, _most people_ would "be happy" trump was out.
It's not important at all. I've seen this exact line repeated all over the Internet today, almost like it's not a real sentiment and instead a pre seeded talking point to muddy the waters.
It is amusing to see the consent factory so efficiently spit this shit out though.
In the case of commentary, an author who uses AI to converse about "his" work indicates a fundamental misunderstanding/lack of comprehension thereof which leads to
The case of code, where an author who is unqualified to have built a certain product himself is thereby unqualified to review AI generated code implementing said product.
The author's post features the quotation of "Brokers", whose quotation has no logical basis except in established LLM generational norms. Furthermore the excessive colons following each feature are also typical of generated text.
The code is not much better. As I spotted rather quickly, the
#define private public
is a huge code smell; for those unfamiliar with C++ or OOP it is an equivalent blunder to
#define true false
or
#define while if
And points to a pretty large disconnect between the author's ability to prompt a model and their ability to evaluate the quality of the model's response.
You are absolutely right! Jokes aside, i got other things to take care of. Regardless of what you believe, the code is not AI generated, vibe coded etc. Is it a quick and dirty? Yes, but from what i remember, it is purely for testing. Bad practice, for sure, no doubt, lots of workarounds. It is OOP after all. Also as i wrote, the code needs polishing, it is an alpha after all. Thanks for the audit!
How does a model even end up outputting that? It goes way beyond code that's a bit buggy or convoluted. If a human did any of the above outside of a humorous context I'd consider it openly malicious.
That said, while I'm no fan of slop I don't feel like the constant accusations of AI we now see bandied about are constructive. The general vibe at this point feels like name calling or even a witch hunt.
Bad or lazy writing should be called out regardless of how it was produced. Same for code. I'd say that "#define private public" stands on its own as case in point; how it was arrived at seems almost entirely irrelevant.
Why waste your time? Dang or Tom will link you to the same pseudo intellectual analysis and claim there is no bias.
Meanwhile, we have eat good food and iran protests plastering the front page, while the news of a an unprovoked murder of a US citizen by masked agents of the state gets buried with flags.
We all know the answer.
reply