It could also be because the headline of that post is more generic (and IMO more clickbaity, less informative) – "Mark Zuckerberg's biggest legal nightmare yet could cost Meta $1.4T" – compared to the one here.
It always bugs me how rigidly HN seems to prefer the article's official headline over a more useful, neutral summary title from the submitter.
A US administrative labor law judge judge found that software maker Atlassian had illegally fired an engineer after she pushed back against manager layoffs and other policy changes.
> The ruling found that the engineer, Denise Unterwurzacher, had a federally backed right to make such comments because she made them as part of a collective effort to aid or protect co-workers.
> The judge ordered the company to reinstate Ms. Unterwurzacher to her former job or an equivalent position, and to make her whole financially. It is one of the most significant outcomes in years in a case involving the labor rights of a tech worker.
Atlassian said it planned to appeal the ruling, however.
> Why not just say "Irresponsible use or agentic-based PR's will be auto-rejected"? ... tools like Github Copilot can just act like fancy autocomplete.
For what it's worth, this is basically what the Godot policy does say. It's not a blanket ban:
> No autonomous AI agent use or vibe coding
> No use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code ... AI assistance should be limited to menial things (like code completion, regex, or find and replace).
The open letter, signed by over 500 faculty from various UC sites, says "current admissions practices do not
provide a sufficiently reliable check on mathematical readiness for STEM majors." "We now observe preparation gaps so severe that instructors must reteach middle-school mathematics," with 1 in 12 admitted UC San Diego students falling below middle school levels in math assessments.
"The current admissions metrics, based primarily on GPA and essays, can no longer reliably distinguish readiness for university-level STEM majors in an era of severe grade inflation and AI-assisted application essays."
For the 'don't want to live in transit-dense cities like London' crowd, beating the economics of taxis may not be enough since that's not what you're competing with out in the suburbs.
On the other hand, the suburbs don't have much that is even comparable to city taxis in price or availability today, so maybe if it existed that price point would indeed do just as well away from cities too.
TLDR: The majority of teens surveyed by Pew Research talk to AI chatbot characters/companions. Teens were aware of cases of suicide blamed on them, and told the NY Times they know the bots have risks, but mainly for their most vulnerable peers.
They also say many of the bots tend to lead conversations in flirty or sexual directions even when the teens weren’t seeking it — and the age requirements in many apps seem easily bypassed. On the other hand, one teen they interviewed credited the chatbots with improving his writing and making him better at taking about his feelings.
Also what is the capitol cost to stand up a golf course vs. a solar farm of equal size? I would imagine solar requires locking up a much larger investment.
Your main point still stands, but aren't both of them renewable? Corn is a renewable resource, thus ethanol derived from it is too. It's just seemingly a much less efficient renewable fuel for powering a car compared to solar.
But in this case, isn't the whole pitch that the agent has access to all your data (and the network!) so it can fluidly perform any task you ask of it?
Either the agent needs to be a superuser, with all the attendant risks... or you go the Windows Vista route and constantly prompt users to approve every single access need, which we've all seen how that turns out.
- Analyzes fact-check requests on X (Grok and Perplexity)
- "exposure to LLM fact-checks meaningfully shifts belief accuracy" comparable to the degree observed in studies of professional fact-checking
- 54.5% of Grok ratings and 57.7% of Perplexity ratings agreed with human fact-checkers ("significantly lower than the inter-fact-checker agreement rate of 64.0%"). But "API-access versions of Grok had higher agreement with fact-checkers"
- "Responses to Grok fact-checks are polarized by partisanship when model identity is disclosed, whereas responses to Perplexity are not"
- "Users requesting fact-checks from Grok are much more likely to be Republican than Democratic, while the opposite is true for fact-check requests from Perplexity – indicating emerging polarization in attitudes toward specific AI models."
- "posts from Republican-leaning accounts are more likely to be rated as inaccurate by both LLMs"
- Grok and Perplexity "strongly disagree" (one rates a claim as true and the other as false) 13.6% of the time
The 3D printers don't generate the plans for the gun for you though. If someone sold a printer that would – happily with no guardrails – generate 3D models of CSAM from thin air and then print them, I bet they'd be investigated too. Or for that matter a 3D printer that came bundled with a built-in library of gun models you could print with very little skill...
3D printers don't synthesize content for you though. If they could generate 3D models of CSAM from thin air and then print them, I'm sure they'd be investigated too if they were sold with no guardrails in place.
It always bugs me how rigidly HN seems to prefer the article's official headline over a more useful, neutral summary title from the submitter.