Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | amatheus's commentslogin

Do I have to look at the text of the article (words, letters, punctuation) to get to the ideas in it? Do ideas exist outside of the code where they are embedded? If the ideas live outside the code how confident can I be confident the code as written embodies the ideas? These are the things I keep thinking about.


Deaths should not fall randomly across the population unless you’re committing war crimes.


This is common sense. It's astonishing that this needs to be explicitly stated on a site like this.

That's not to say that 30% isn't a crime against humanity. About 1.5 million children were murdered during the Holocaust (1.5M of 6M+ deaths). Israel murders more children than adults when compared to the Nazis.


I agree, however the claim is not war crimes, its genocide. People think that using genocide to simply mean lots of killing and destruction and war makes them morally superior, but genocide entails "intent" and we need a vocabulary to differentiate between the two.


Overall, intent is quite hard to prove. You would need to access internal documents and communications that explicitly direct the military. That's probably not going to happen.

However, from what I have observed, Israeli government officials have often expresses that intent publicly, despite claiming otherwise at the UN.


In this case it is fundamentally impossible, since halakha prohibits deliberate targeting of civilians-- but not collateral damage.

So if you optimize for collateral damage and all civilian casualties are "accidental," then you are wholly operating within the constraints of your moral framework and can plausibly deny all claims of genocidal intent.


I am sorry but did you look at pictures of Gaza? Do you not see them actually CONCENTRATING the previously 2 million people there into a gigantic CAMP?



Deaths in Gaza are very much not random.

Adult men have the highest casualties which is what would be expected since Hamas militants are most often adult men, it's well documented that Hamas also uses child soldiers to some degree as well.


Adult men are also the ones first to head out to retrieve food from dangerous places.

> it's well documented

It's well documented that food distribution places were specifically made dangerous.


> Adult men have the highest casualties

And 30% of casualties are children. The two are not mutually exclusive and this is the data point currently under scrutiny.


> it's well documented that Hamas also uses child soldiers to some degree as well.

Cruel Israeli oppression motivates even children to resist them.

Israel then murders said children.

Obviously Hamas must be to blame for Israeli actions.


> Cruel Israeli oppression motivates even children to resist them.

More like Hamas/UNRWA schools teach children to be terrorists.


Why is it that most of the world despises the Israelis, despite them not having gone to Hamas/UNRWA schools?


Successful anti-israel propaganda based on kgb-demoralization (west bad, "white privilige" etc.) https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/ sponsored by Iran’s oil money.

Mobbing against Israel by Arab and their socialist friend states in the UN.


I mean yea... If youre a child soldier you should expect to be targeted, even if your cause is valiant.


I liked the article overall but found it a little wishy-washy in some of the conclusions.

> People do not want to wake up every day and log in to Slack and find the buttons and menus all subtly moved around. People do not want financial transactions that complete most of the time. Determinism is not going anywhere, my friends.

Well, I can't reconcile people not wanting things moving around and determinism with the promises of acceleration made by AI. The way I see it either AI makes "massive, discontinuous returns on investment" by way of changing things or we get a sustainable rate of change; these seem like contradicting goals to me.


Plus humans are non-deterministic, so AI replacing humans is not adding more determinism to the development process.


Humans make up for being non-deterministic by being disciplined

AI doesn't have anything resembling discipline


This looks very interesting. I’m not sure I understand this, but it seems to me like it competes (or is in the same space as) both Tailscale and zeromq/nanomsg via the protocols? I think it would be nice to have a comparison page to make it easier to position it (I didn’t find one).


A key distinguishing factor is that iroh is meant to be used as a library that you can embed into your desktop, mobile or embedded apps.

Up to now our users are mostly teams that have a rust or C/C++ core, such as https://delta.chat/ . But now that we have bindings teams who use other languages should be able to use iroh.

So you can write e.g. an android and ios app that uses iroh direct connections under the hood, and the app user does not have to know or care about this at all.


We keep thinking about ways to combine iroh + zeroMQ! I think these two could compose. (Not familiar with nanomsg myself)

About tailscale: It's similar, but iroh is not a VPN, so it doesn't add a TUN interface. Instead, you'd build iroh directly into your application. Using iroh you can build a VPN, and there are projects that do so (iroh-lan/iroh-vpn are some hobbyist projects). The upside of building it into your application is that it doesn't need special permissions and is easy to ship to the user.


From an economic perspective productivity is defined as the creation of value isn't it? Then if you "improve productivity" and does not create value in the end you're no improving productivity at all.


It does depend on how you define productivity. But the way it's commonly used is "I'm going faster, personally, with these tools."

The thing people I think have a hard time seeing is that "I go faster" does not mean "more features get finished".

It's a scale issue, and one scale is better than the other. People only pay for finished features, they do not pay for how much code you emit.


economists define productivity as gdp per hour worked. Like a lot of other economic measurements, its mostly a bogus number people use as an argument on why their politics are better than someone elses politics. You can have an efficient business located in a poor country making the same product and same quality as that same business in a rich country, the rich country will be more "productive" because local cost of goods is higher there (i.e. a restaurant in NYC is more "productive" than a restaurant in bangladesh).


Sure. But that's not, in my view, how most people use the word productivity when describing LLM use.

In my field - operations - productivity is usually described as some rate of production for a specific asset. 100 widgets / machine / hour - for example.

"My productivity is 3 PRs / day with the LLM as opposed to 1 PR per every three days". That's how I think people are thinking about it.

My point is that's not the same thing as value. I.e. what people will pay for.


You're correct, I just wanted to add that there is another definition that you may see used online, and it is very specific, and it's important to be aware it's NOT exactly the same thing most normal people mean when they say "productivity".


I appreciate you looking out. Thank you.


I’ve noticed more gold-plating.

“This random part of the code is slow, I used an LLM to generate a PR that speeds it up.”

Okay, you optimized the part that’s not a bottleneck, sped up nothing and cost the company $100 in tokens. Good job?


I'm quite fond of this play on "if a tree falls in the woods":

"If an LLM builds a feature, and no one uses it, did it make value?"


Productivity is defined revenue per worker hour. And we know worker hours are going down as there are fewer workers with the layoffs.


Which is why modern management thinks firing everyone in your factory and selling the inventory in your warehouse is amazingly productive.


Maybe instead of people picking up AI mannerism people will start training on what makes AI gives correct results and human communication will look like prompting.


If AI is all the thing people keep saying someone should be able to develop an Animate/Flash clone, right? Given the reaction to its discontinuation, how people seem to depend on it, and how much content is out there it seem like the incentives do exist.


Well, if social media can profit from user content it should be liable too right?


I think there may be a way forward for the internet. Why isn't hacker news being strangled by SEO spam for example? I think the way forward is a much smaller internet predicated on tight-knit communities approving everything that's shared. I don't know how this could scale but maybe that's the point, it must stay small to succeed.


I think that would be the right decision, to me that makes more sense than forcing Apple to allow any app to be installed on iOS or allowing alternate stores.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: