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

The list doesn't corroborate that. The international component seems important.

It's also not a sale of any sort. They're asking for pledges and have an accredited investor question.

I think this applies to everyone. There's a lot of ego and pride that people can't shake.

Usually, the copy and structure of a landing page is dictated by founders or marketing folks. Sales people also make this mistake on their slides. They have too many slides about a fancy team, fancy product, and fancy features -- then maybe they show a tailored use case or two.

I highly recommend Donald Miller's Marketing Made Simple as an antidote.


> At the same time, 79 percent of those surveyed by Gallup “expressed concern that AI makes people lazier,” and 65 percent said that using chatbots “promotes instant gratification, not real understanding” and prevents people from engaging with ideas in a critical or meaningful way.

I don't see how these and other sentiments are unique to Gen Z at all.

The difference I've seen is that many zoomers have given up on learning in the first place. "What's the point?"


You can sign ZDR agreements with any of the major LLM providers. Using AWS alone is also not sufficient. Even though AWS is running the model, you need to contact them for proper ZDR.[0]

[0]: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/claude...


Helpful link. Thank you.

I think that when people are worried about ZDR, what they really worry about is data governance. From what I’ve seen there’s a general distrust of OpenAI. AWS may keep your data around (without formal ZDR) but the concern of governance (using your data to train without your consent) seems like it would be much lower, because any breach of contract at AWS would have potential to destroy trust in what’s already a massively profitable company, so the incentives just aren’t there.

I’m not claiming OpenAI is training on API data. Just that they don’t have as strong of an incentive not to as AWS.


AWS took limited data retention very seriously starting around 2015. Before that it was reasonable controls and a strong culture preserving customer privacy. After 2015ish they started implementing strong controls, to where service team members cant feasibly access customer data in the service they run, and account termination starts a legit data removal process (“GDPR compliance”). They also take the terms of service and user agreement (“your data” etc) very seriously in general.

Who here remembers the fud of Y2K?


Don't mistake a defused bomb for a dud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox


Thanks! I think about this concept a lot, and now I know there's a name for it. "Preparedness paradox". I'll have to remember that.

And to your point, Y2K is right there on the wiki page for it.


I remember the reality of all the work needed to avoid issues.


As others have stated, the lack of visible effect is not the same thing as there never having been a land mine in the first place.

I can tell you anecdotally that on 12/31/2000 I was hanging with some friends. At 12PM UTC we turned on the footage from London. At first it appeared to be a fiery hellscape armageddon. while it turned out to just be fireworks with a wierd camera angle, there was a moment where we were concerned something was actually happening. Most of us in the room were technologists, and while we figured it'd all be no big deal, we weren't *sure* and it very much alarmed us to see it on the screen.


While there was a lot of FUD in the media, there were also a lot of scenarios that were actually possible but were averted due to a LOT of work and attention ahead of time. It should be looked at, IMO, as a success of communication, warnings, and a lot of effort that nothing of major significance happened.


Yes, Y2K is a success story, similar to the alert and response related to ozone layer and CFCs.

Dissimilar to the global climate catastrophe, unfortunately.

---

The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/74/12/812/780859...

"Tragically, we are failing to avoid serious impacts"

"We have now brought the planet into climatic conditions never witnessed by us or our prehistoric relatives within our genus, Homo"

"Despite six IPCC reports, 28 COP meetings, hundreds of other reports, and tens of thousands of scientific papers, the world has made only very minor headway on climate change"

"projections paint a bleak picture of the future, with many scientists envisioning widespread famines, conflicts, mass migration, and increasing extreme weather that will surpass anything witnessed thus far, posing catastrophic consequences for both humanity and the biosphere"


I don't mean to lessen the impact of that statement. I think climate change is a serious problem. But also most of the geologic time that genus Homo has existed, Earth has been in an ice age. Much of which we'd consider a "snowball Earth". The last warm interglacial period, the Eemian, was 120,000 years ago.


That's an interesting bit of detail. As you intended, it does not lessen the impact of the statement: "conditions never witnessed by us or our prehistoric relatives". It confirms it, with some additional context.

To me, it seems to make it even more significant. Because as you point out, Homo evolved under ice age conditions over millions of years. Well, here we are about to be thrust into uncharted territory, in an extremely short period of time. With very fragile global interdependencies, an overpopulated planet, and billions of people exposed to the consequences.


Right? I would only caution that neither has the ice age been particularly kind to humanity. It seems at least a couple times to have almost gotten us all. There's a genetic bottleneck in genus Homo which seems to date back ~80k years, which aligns suspiciously with the Toba supervolcano eruption. And another around 850k years ago. During each there were likely fewer than 2,000 breeding humans.

Earth has certainly thrived with a warmer climate. No reason we can't too. The problems - for us and other life - stem from the rate of change. Which is easy to see is very very rapid compared to the historical cycles, but still a slow motion trainwreck compared to an asteroid strike, supervolcano, or gamma ray pulse, all of which it seems Earth has experienced. Life and human society will adapt if it has enough time. The quicker the catastrophe the more challenging that is.

I guess what I'm saying is that we're not doing ourselves any favors, but we also shouldn't underestimate mother nature's ability to throw us a curve ball in the 9th inning that makes everything worse. Life has endured an awful lot on this little rock.


What you just wrote is the same as: 'the entire lifecycle of humanity has no precursor to the conditions' we are about to face.

We aren't facing the ice age that has been the last 120,000 years.

I'm sure the rocky planet will survive just fine, maybe even some extreemophiles, even if we completely screw up the atmosphere. Not 6 billion humans though.


The genus Homo dates back nearly 2 million years.


Yes. And virtually all of that time has been colder than average: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...

Sometimes a great deal so. Sometimes less. But nearly always below average. For our whole existence.

That's why the choice of wording struck me.

You can zoom out a bit more and it just gets clearer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...

Further out and we're still one of the coldest periods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...

We're ice-age dwellers. Always have been.

I can both be alarmed at how quickly the ice age humanity has evolved within is ending, and find that a very funny way of phrasing it. These things don't conflict in me, though it seems triggering to some. People are downvoting me with moral conscience, but I'm just over here laughing at a funny conjunction of paleoclimate and word choice. :) People getting offended by it kinda makes it funnier.


this is the same style comment as "no offense, but <offensive thing>"

if you didnt intend to lessen the impact of that statement, why say something that is specifically meant to lessen the impact of the statement? just say what you want to say without the hedging.


Made me think of Mark Fisher's Y2K Positive text:

> At the Great Midnight at the century's end, signifying culture will flip over into a number-based counterculture, retroprocessing the last 100 years. Whether global disaster ensues or not, Y2K is a singularity for cybernetic culture. It's time to get Y2K positive.

Mark Fisher (2004). Y2K Positive in Mute.


Tell us you weren't involved in Y2K iwithout telling us you weren't involved in Y2K.


Exciting times with an anticlimactic end; I was in middle school, relishing the chaos of the adult world.


Another victim of the preparedness paradox.


Headline is megaclickbait. The research is about how healthier gut microbiomes correlate with improved pooping and nothing about how it impacts your health.


From the article’s “key takeaways”:

> By considering interindividual and intraindividual differences in transit time in human studies, diet–microbiota interactions and disease-related microbiome signatures may be better elucidated.

There is also an entire section entitled “The role of gut transit time in health and disease”


None of this is summarized in the posted article. It's in the research paper which I didn't read because the article seemed like fluff.


Seems presumptuous to make assertions about what’s in the research if you haven’t read it


I'm going to suggest what's going on here is Hanlon's Razor for models: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a model's stupidity."

In my opinion, we've reached some ceiling where more tokens lead only to incremental improvements. A conspiracy seems unlikely given all providers are still competing for customers and a 50% token drives infra costs up dramatically too.


Never attribute to incompetence what is sufficiently explained by greed.


Correct.


I've been very happy with agentmail.to for a while with great success. You get 3K free emails per month with 3 inboxes. Paid tier starts at $0.20 per 1000 emails.

Disclaimer: I don't work for agentmail.


You'd be surprised. With React, Claude can get twisted in knots mostly because React lends itself to a pile of spaghetti code.


What's an alternative library that doesn't turn large/complex frontend code into spaghetti code?


Vue (my favorite) and Svelte do well.


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

Search: