I love the author's attitude. In my writing, I'll probably consider using en dashes ("-") in place of em dashes ("—") in the way he describes.
While it technically won't be grammatically correct, it'll get the benefits he describes in the article while also not being accused of being AI-generated.
I disagree. It's a high signal article that can create great discussions on what people on HN have reverse-engineered with AI.
For example, just yesterday I reverse engineered the internal API of a SAAS tool we use and it allowed me to gain programmatic access to data that was only available in their slow clunky UI.
Aside from the fact that they're judging you based on who you were as a minor, it's interesting how it was a startup that asked for this and not a large corporation, given that modern US public schooling is more optimized towards getting you to work in an large institution than a startup.
Same schedule every single day, you get a lunch break, exams are designed in a way that there's only one single correct answer, outside of the box thinking is wrong, and you'll get at least a B+ if you just do your homework everyday.
Nice! Some feedback: The score it shows doesn't really mean anything to me. I think it would be more interesting for the user to know how they rank (perhaps in percentile terms) relative to the overall english-speaking population and/or relative to other users on the site
Anecdotally, when it comes to talking to strangers I've often felt it's easier to converse with older people than those my own age. For example, the conversations feel more genuine and less "forced" on both sides, and overall I feel more comfortable being myself.
The reason might be because they grew up in a world where social media was non-existent, so interacting with strangers was more common. As a result, they tend to be more socially intelligent than the younger generations.
Will be thinking about this article the next time I reach for my AirPods as I'm about to leave the house.
Sending AI-generated messages can also be disrespectful to the recipient. Personally, I often just don't bother responding when I receive low-effort messages that are clearly AI-generated.
Yeah this one definitely seems like the wrong approach. I prefer the approach of the other professor who makes her students write the code by hand (with the analogy of how grade schoolers learn basic algebra by hand before they are allowed to use calculators).
Although making students write it on paper (as described) feels extreme. Why not just make them write the code manually on a regular IDE, see how it compiles, etc.?
Seems reasonable to build a cryptocurrency around this. The network could pay the cryptocurrency out to users dedicating resources. Have you thought about that?
Very interesting. Beyond ideological motivation, I’m curious what the long-term incentive is for someone to run a peer.
For example, if Freenet were to reach scale, it could eventually need some kind of economic primitive around it. Something similar to how Filecoin handles decentralized storage, but for app state. One way to do this could be paying peers to keep app state available, serve it reliably, etc. and prove they are doing so.
A lot of people become "stuck in their ways" as they get older. Marc saying this about introspection might be an example of it starting to happen to him. By definition, "being stuck in your own ways" is having a lack of introspection.
It feels like these weight-loss drugs distract from the underlying issue which is that obesity is mostly caused by an unhealthy lifestyle.
It amazes me that we live in a world where people need an injection just to appear healthy. Most of the benefits of fitness come from the process itself (going to the gym, doing cardio, eating high quality food, getting enough sleep, being in a routine, etc.)
Yeah I think where we fundamentally disagree is what prediction markets should be optimizing for.
If the goal is to produce the most accurate forecast possible, then informed traders (especially asymmetrically informed traders) are a feature of the system, not a bug. The market is a system for discovering the truth, and it generally rewards whoever brings that truth to the table first.
If the goal is to create a fair playing field where the crowd collectively arrives at an answer, then yeah someone with private information becomes problematic.
But I'd argue that's optimizing for fairness at the cost of accuracy, and accuracy is much more important.
The actual economic theory behind prediction markets (if you read Robin Hanson's work, efficient market hypothesis, etc.) is that these markets work precisely because informed traders bring private information into the price. That's literally the core mechanism that underpins them.
Yes prediction markets represent "wisdom of crowd", and they do this by rewarding people who contribute correct information. So informed traders are the ones making the system work, and they're putting actual money on the line to back up their claim. Without them you're just left with uninformed guesses, which isn't really "wisdom of crowds", it's noise.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but calling it insider trading misses the entire point of what prediction markets are built for.
The goal of a prediction market is to be able to forecast the future as accurately as possible. Restricting informed traders weakens the mechanism that makes them useful.
Money signals how strongly someone believes something will happen.
Oatmeal has become my favorite breakfast by far. It's delicious and never seems to never give me the "crash" that people describe with other carbs (probably due to it's low GI). Very easy to blend them into my protein shakes after a morning workout too.
This is a good example of why companies that have IAM figured out (Amazon, Google, etc.) might do well as AI becomes more embedded into our daily lives.