Ads actually provide value to hundreds of thousands of small businesses. I personally know multiple business owners that almost exclusively rely on Meta ads to survive.
Fact checkers provide no value over Community Notes and often just misinterpret things through their own politicized lens
Edit: Convinced that HN is mad about this change because it means that the common political leaning of HN will no longer be amplified. Community Notes is objectively the more democratic and fair solution here, and a technically sound one as well.
One scientist can't possibly democratically verify facts if there are a hundred crazy family uncles and aunts not liking/denying their facts or simply feeling different.
I'm not sure some of this is a good idea. It reads a bit like "These LLMs are great! We can get rid of those pesky engineers!". It reminds me of the xkcd[1] about how some problems are trivial and some are almost impossible and as a layman you don't know which is which. That's more true than ever will LLMs, everything is new and so very few people actually know what is easy and what is hard. When you say "You can go off and do this without engineers and use AI to help you" what you are actually saying is "You can go and be a bad engineer". That's fine, if you don't have any engineers, then that's probably the best option. But if you're sensible probably a 5 minute conversation with someone who knows what they're talking about is more useful. In my experience as an engineer, the people who do jobs related to my job and think they can do my job: are crap at my job, generally not that good at their own either, and very difficult to work with.
I think the more interesting question for the PM is how are you going to make a differentiated product in the market if everything you're planning to build is trivial? If it's not trivial, maybe talk to an engineer or two.
Well I think it’s as simple as P vs NP. This is the primary difficulty with AI and always will be. Solutions are easy to get AI to construct. The difficulty is in verifying those solutions. This can be seen in industry even now, evals are the hardest part of non-trivial AI systems
I think a lot of the analysis of Intel is just looking at a totally broken timeframe. Intel started having problems in early 2010s. It has been sliding since then. To fix it you need to clean house, get aligned on a good chain of management and engineering, then build out a roadmap that gets you back to process leadership and then execute on that roadmap. A year to sort out the organisation, a year to re-vamp the roadmap, probably 2-3 years to execute. Pat was probably the only person with the clout to ask for that time, and he didn't get it (and arguably he didn't really face the scale of the problem). The board failed, but it failed in 2010-2015, there's no point searching for someone to blame now, we're well past the point that the correct answer is to sell it for parts.
I'm not sure how much of an experiment it is. A bloomberg terminal is ~$25k a seat. There are plenty of specialist software tools in the $10kpa region. So going in at $2.5k doesn't seem like a big push.
Honestly, come around to our neck of the woods and explain to a generation of 20 year olds who grew up in semi-detatched houses that they'll never buy a house in their lifetime because we chose not to build anything because we'd rather honor the dead.
This isn't the type of market you pop down to and buy your weekly shop, this is wholesale. It's largely where restaurants will go to to buy their meat for the day/week. Smithfields opens at midnight and closes at 7am. You can walk past at mid-day and it's just a fairly run-down part of london in the middle of other much nicer parts of London. This is nothing to do with walkable cities.
The connection here is that restaurants are part of the appeal of walkable cities and now their life will be made harder. Net effect will of course be an increase in prices.
You need places like these in a city because they shoulder a huge burden, namely logistics, which are particularly hard in densely populated areas.
I walk past/through Smithfields regularly. It's... nice? Ok it's not nice, it' uniquely London but it's just a pretty run down area in the middle of much nicer areas. But the plan was never to keep it, the plan was to knock it down and tell the people who had been working there to go work in Dagenham. So in my view this is no difference. That area of London just doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a meat market anymore, and while you can preserve the buildings you can't preserve a set of businesses that look sillier and sillier by the day. At some point you have to ask what you're actually preserving, because "Smithfields Market (rebuilt in Dagenham in 2025)" isn't really that historical.
That's what I'm saying, if you wanted to preserve it, preserve it where it is. If you're preserving it by moving it to east london... you're not really preserving it. There are plenty of distribution centres in east london already. So it's not really a loss to give up on the Dagenham plan.
Whilst this is objectively true - this result is basically within the margin of error of most polls. I highly doubt this argument is going to be accepted by most people. It'll be exactly like Nate Silver screaming into the void for the last 8 years pointing out he gave Trump a ~30% chance of winning and that happens... 30% of the time!
This isn’t an interesting statement. I could pull any numbers out of a hat in (0, 1) as probabilities and regardless of the outcome could use the same excuse because there is only a single event to observe.
That won't be the user experience. There is a limited amount of space on the road and functionally unlimited demand. Demand will level off at a point where either "Immediately a car arrives" turns to "After a barely tolerable wait your car arrives" and "It drives you directly to your destination" turns to "It sits in traffic for a barely tolerable amount of time". Either that limits demand or price limits demand in which case the vast majority of people will be priced out in order to keep roads empty enough for your best user experience.
If both are available to you, then no matter how crowded the roads will be, a car that drives you directly from A to B will be the better UX than a bus that drives you from somewhere near A to somewhere near B via C, D, E and F.
So the car could only be the worse experience if it is hard to get one (Because all the cars near you are occupied by other people) while a bus is easy to get into (Because there is one near you and you still fit in).
The vast majority of worldwide rides will continue to be done in individual cars. The extremely crowded situation that would make a bus the better experience is extremely rare. Most rides worldwide are definitely not done in that kind of environment. And the removal of parking spaces and the better routing self-driving cars allow will move even those environments more towards the individual car.
Or, as is the case in most cities around the world busses, trains and cycle routes are faster modes of transport because they have dedicated routes that aren't subject to congestion in the same way roads are. Walking 5 minutes to the bus stop beats getting stuck in 45 minutes of congestion in the car.
Sorry, you can have a cheap-ish FPGA that came out 10 years ago, or a new FPGA that costs more than your car and requires a $3000 software license to even program. Those are the only options allowed.
The COP is AMD/Xilinx. I have no idea what the agilex 3 and 5 costs are, I'm not an Altera user. I will note though, having used Lattice, Microchip, and (admittedly at the start of Titanium) Efinix, none of the tools come close to Vivado/Vitis. I'm on lattice at the moment and I've lost countless hours to the tools not working or working poorly on Linux relative to Xilinx. Hobbyist me doesn't care, I'll sink the hours in. Employee me does care, though.
reply