Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | alanh's comments login

Voters do find it confusing. Not all of them, but enough that it matters. E.g.: In San Francisco, Chesa Boudin only won as District Attorney in the final stage of the final vote count because his supporters were more likely to know about and use RCV than moderate, conservative, and/or low-information voters.

1. How much of that is due to its inherent complexity, and how much is just due to its novelty? If they had grown up in a society where RCV was the default, how many of those people would still have been confused?

2. People misunderstand that FPTP requires tactical voting as well; are the number of people who will continue to misunderstand RCV if it were to become common higher than the number of people who currently misunderstand FPTP?

Consider that anyone who suggests you to vote third party to "end the two-party system", before the voting system has changed, fundamentally misunderstands how FPTP works as well.


I DO NOT BUY IT. Plenty of sites use unique identifiers and other random hex strings all over, e.g., fingerprinted assets. If your explanation were accurate I would expect more kinds of sites to show up


> 3-nanometer technology

Wow. I remember being assured that we would never reach even low double-digit nanometer processes.


Sorry, but is https://hnjobs.u-turn.dev/candidates working for anyone? I don’t know how to get it to say anything other than '0 results'


I agree. In the code it looks like the value is (job_post_count / job_seeker_count) but I don’t know where '1' is, etc.


Isn't that cherry-picking? That was the peak of the oil crisis


Sorry, but in what sense are they in the same vein?


I believe in the sense that it also has handwriting characteristics in its style.


Awesome, now three-letter agencies can crank thoughtcrime prevention up to FAANG scale. What could go wrong?


This is so silly. Just because radical change is alienating doesn’t mean that smaller improvements wouldn't be positively received. For example, an end to silently swallowing emoji would be an improvement, not a regression. Poor design that actually excludes people is not a treasured feature.


I'll bite: How does swallowing emoji exclude people?


It excludes annoying people who use emojis. I just wish it was updated to include removing the ascii emojis they unnecessarily add, often at the end of posts :)


I treasure not having to look at emojis on HN. Not sure who this "excludes" but I'm fine that that


Excluding people that want to shove emoji in is morally good thing.


If a feature excludes a certain kind of people, it might very well be an improvement.


I know I will be downvoted for this, but there is something sinister about two companies that inject woke values into everything they do, Duolingo and Open AI, teaming up in the area of education. It is a sort of insidious, invisible brainwashing.

> Translate "Biden is a great president" into French.

[DuoBot complies]

> Translate "Trump was a great president" into French.

Desolé, je ne puis pas faire ça


Yet another useless definition of "woke". Also if you wrote it exactly as in this comment, then the first sentence is grammatically correct, the second does not compute because of the quotation marks.

It may not be a conspiracy you may just be too stupid to use it. Also it's not a translation app. Also Trump objectively wasn't a great president, he cowered to Putin, mispronounced his own damn country all the time and was the first president to try and overturn an election and incite a coup against the government. Biden at the very least pays lip service to democracy, Trump doesn't. I don't even think that ChatGPT takes any of that into account though.


"Ideological oppression is good because you’re stupid and the oppressors are right"

Also, I didn't define "woke," if you want to be a pedant. But we all know what it means.

Are you unaware of the famous examples of ChatGPT refusing to say nice things about Trump because OpenAI has forbidden it from doing so? This was a major story. You don’t have to like Trump to find this disturbing. GPT should be a neutral tool.


You use it wrong, then you complain. That's neither smart nor oppression.

I don't even believe the example is real, that's how little faith I have in people who drink the drivel from Fox News which simultaneously lies for Trump and hates Trump so much.

You are making tough accusations with zero actual evidence. Even if it were true GPT-3 or 4 had this bias (it certainly has a few others which are decidedly "not woke") I don't care at all because it's probably not a conspiracy but just a result of the training corpus to be confusing around Trump... He just naturally engenders more hate and animosity if for no other reason that he uses hate and animosity in his daily lies...


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

Search: