Another situation where bad actors benefit. From the article:
> What really interests Cian, who has published research[1] exploring how audiences tend to have less trust in media outlets that are transparent about their AI use, is the fact that the Post disclosed its use of algorithmic pricing at all. “If you ask people [whether they] want transparency on what’s behind your pricing strategy, people say ‘yes,'” he says. “But what we found in my research is a paradox, in the sense that people think that they want to know, but once they know, the reaction is worse than not knowing.”
> But what we found in my research is a paradox, in the sense that people think that they want to know, but once they know, the reaction is worse than not knowing.
"People said they wanted to know if companies were putting feces into chocolate, but once they know, they stop buying that 'chocolate'. The reaction is worse than not knowing! What a paradox! The revealed preference is that consumers want companies to secretly include feces. I am a professor."
It shouldn't be surprising that a company who might be using a scummy pricing strategy gets less blow-back than one who comes right out and brazenly says they are using a scummy pricing strategy. When the action is bad, admitting to it and continuing to do it shows contempt.
It's as though you caught a thief rifling through your pockets and they just looked you in the eye and said, "You caught me. I'm not stopping. What are you going to do about it chump?"
Note the way he brushes off his own attorney's objections, not even looking at or reacting to her, while he discusses why someone who's mass-canceling grants doesn't need any grant-writing experience. Total disdain for any kind of expertise, whether academic or legal.
I was curious about this from another video in relation to this case. I have no legal training, but I think there's no reason the witness would refuse to answer when counsel objects. There's no judge in the room as far as I know. The court handles the objections after the fact, I think, which could potentially have implications on how the trial proceeds.
Again, I have never practiced law, so I may be entirely incorrect. Also, I am not defending the witness or their actions.
No. This person should not try to circumvent moderation by creating new accounts. They should ask the moderation team for reinstatement of normal posting privileges, but be willing to accept a refusal. They've behaved appallingly.
I havnt seen this before Does (dead) mean they got downvoted or that everything they write is voided? How do you know what they wrote is appallingly bad?
Coincidentally, I just used hn.algolia to look up one of your old comments where you describe being sandblasted, and was surprised to find the most recent use of "sandblasted" on HN is by you, linking to an algolia search of you saying "sandblasted".
Thank you sincerely for your sacrifice, Dan. Whenever I have an urge to flame, I picture my impending comment as one more grain of sand speeding towards your cranium, and instead I step away from the keyboard.
Besides the telltale "it's not x, it's y" used repeatedly in their comment history, I also struggle to imagine what would motivate a human to type such blandly agreeable jargon-filled pablum. I'd certainly prefer not read it, even if it didn't spill out of an LLM.
Thanks for making a stink about it.
(edit: I now see you used the p-word to describe it too, and normally I'd edit my post to use a different synonym, but "pablum" really is the perfect description. I also assume you already reported this account to hn@ so I won't bug the mods a second time.)
In one case, we have a person in their home town, caught up in a situation that was not of her own making.
Babbitt directly put herself in the situation of traveling to the capital, breaking in to it, ignoring direct and lawful orders from police officers, moving towards people that the police had every reason to believe were likely targets of violence, after once again physically breaking in to an area.
They're not really comparable situations, IMO. But I don't like people dying when it is avoidable.
One was killed on the street, as she was leaving a protest, the other was killed while trying to break into a secure area of the capital during an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power after an election.
I think your admission says a lot more about you than it does about either of the two women.
If this is actually true, I think you can find a more reliable source than Elon Musk.
I'm not saying you should never listen to a word he says. His actions shape the world after all, so it's important to understand how his words precede his behavior. But I'm baffled why anyone would take Elon at his word, or even slightly hedge their perception of reality based on Elon's claims of fact.
I was leaving an HN comment, not writing an essay. I'm not fond of Elon's personality, but I listened to the context of the conversation and believe him.
Did you listen to the conversation? There was a great amount of detail. Which parts of the conversation seemed unbelievable to you?
Regardless, it's also been reported in the press over the past quarter, and TSMC's previously largest customer, Apple, notably has had to make fab adjustments and form new partnerships with Intel.
No, and I'm sorry for derailing your point. Thank you for the additional links. I skimmed them all but didn't see anyone corroborate the claim that TSMC is limited by its upstream component suppliers, rather than its own factory underinvestment in prior years. Am I misunderstanding, and those two things are the same?
Your hot takes are all wrong. Especially your last parenthetical. I mean, I'm not doubting that you may have forgotten to turn on lossless audio! But what I think you're implying, that lossless audio is clearly distinguishable from 256kbps-ish streaming audio when played over bluetooth, has not been supported by many listening tests of AAC even at much at lower bitrates.
> Why can't you just celebrate this good thing?
reads like <font size=2> /s </font>.
reply