As a counterpoint, see The Trouble With Optionality [1] as a critique of keeping your options open to forestall a single "decisive mistake":
> This emphasis on creating optionality can backfire in surprising ways. Instead of enabling young people to take on risks and make choices, acquiring options becomes habitual. You can never create enough option value—and the longer you spend acquiring options, the harder it is to stop.
> The Yale undergraduate goes to work at McKinsey for two years, then comes to Harvard Business School, then graduates and goes to work Goldman Sachs and leaves after several years to work at Blackstone. Optionality abounds!
> This individual has merely acquired stamps of approval and has acquired safety net upon safety net. These safety nets don’t end up enabling big risk-taking—individuals just become habitual acquirers of safety nets. The comfort of a high-paying job at a prestigious firm surrounded by smart people is simply too much to give up. When that happens, the dreams that those options were meant to enable slowly recede into the background. For a few, those destinations are in fact their dreams come true—but for every one of those, there are ten entrepreneurs, artists, and restaurateurs that get trapped in those institutions.
Oh no, someone who might have become megarich settles for... upper class and we treat this like it's something worth critiquing?
Optionality stuff like what you're describing is rationale and leads to by far the best expected returns on life satisfaction. Less stupid risk taking, more careful decision making would do a lot to make the world better.
Also see Bloomberg Businessweek's excellent "You Could Fill a Museum" graphic — every item with dimensions listed in the FBI's stolen art database illustrated, to scale. You could fill a museum indeed!
Similarly from Notes From An Emergency [1] by Maciej Cegłowski:
"It's not clear that anyone can secure large data collections over time. The asymmetry between offense and defense may be too great. If defense at scale is possible, the only way to do it is by pouring millions of dollars into hiring the best people to defend it. Data breaches at the highest levels have shown us that the threats are real and ongoing. And for every breach we know about, there are many silent ones that we won't learn about for years.
A successful defense, however, just increases the risk. Pile up enough treasure behind the castle walls and you'll eventually attract someone who can climb them. The feudal system makes the Internet more brittle, ensuring that when a breach finally comes, it will be disastrous."
This will make AI the new sesame allergen [1] — if you aren't 100% certain every asset you use isn't AI-generated, then it makes sense to stick some AI-generated content in and label the video accordingly, out of compliance.
Wow. This is an awesome education on why you can’t just regulate the world into what you want it to be without regard to feasibility. I’m sure the few who are allergic are mad, but it would also be messed up to just ban all “allergens” across the board - which is the only effective and fair way to guarantee that this approach couldn’t ever be used to comply with these laws. There isn’t much out there that somebody isn’t allergic to or intolerant of.
>would also be messed up to just ban all “allergens” across the board -
Lol, this sounds like one of those fabels where an idiot king bans all allergens then a week later everyone is starving to death in the kingdom because it turns out that in a large enough population there will be enough different allergies that everything gets banned.
Same. I will (almost certainly) never incur a $104k bill, but switching to Cloudfare Pages looks free and I don't want to depend on unwritten policies of goodwill to mitigate the potential risk.
This (excellent) series on armor in order [1] agrees. Throughout all of history, protecting heads and torsos is the top priority for armor. Everything else follows, especially given pre-modern cost and weight restrictions.
For futureproofing, we should extend the scale to cover hypercanes [1], which (according to Wikipedia):
- require ocean temperatures of 120 °F (50 °C)
- have sustained winds of 500 mph (800 km/h)
- have barometric pressures in their centers sufficiently low enough to cause altitude sickness
- may persist for several weeks due to above low pressure
- may be as large as North America or as small as 15 mi (25 km) — Wikipedia has an unhelpful caption about the size of the "average hypercane" (!)
- extend into the upper stratosphere, unlike today's hurricanes (lower stratosphere)
- due to above height, may sufficiently degrade the ozone layer with water vapor to the point of causing (an additional) hazard to planetary life
As of today, both a hypercane and a regular, run-of-the-mill catastrophic hurricane would be rated a Category 5. But I suppose hurricane categorization and nomenclature would be the least of NOAA's problems in such an event.
In a more brainteaser/puzzle direction there's wu:riddles [1]. For a site that hasn't been updated since 2009 (!) it's very functional and holds up surprisingly well, aesthetically.
This comment and many of the replies seem to outright dismiss chatbots as universally useless, but there's selection bias at work. Of course the average HN commenter would (claim to) have a nuanced situation that can only be handled by a human representative, but the majority of customer service interactions can be handled much more routinely.
Bits About Money [1] has a thoughtful take on customer support tiers from the perspective of banking:
> Think of the person from your grade school classes who had the most difficulty at everything. The U.S. expects banks to service people much, much less intelligent than them. Some customers do not understand why a $45 charge and a $32 charge would overdraw an account with $70 in it. The bank will not be more effective at educating them on this than the public school system was given a budget of $100,000 and 12 years to try. This customer calls the bank much more frequently than you do. You can understand why, right? From their perspective, they were just going about their life, doing nothing wrong, and then for some bullshit reason the bank charged them $35.
It's frustrating to be put through a gauntlet of chatbots and phone menus when you absolutely know you need a human to help, but that's the economics of chatbots and tier 1/2 support versus specialists:
> The reason you have to “jump through hoops” to “simply talk to someone” (a professional, with meaningful decisionmaking authority) is because the system is set up to a) try to dissuade that guy from speaking to someone whose time is expensive and b) believes, on the basis of voluminous evidence, that you are likely that guy until proven otherwise.
> This emphasis on creating optionality can backfire in surprising ways. Instead of enabling young people to take on risks and make choices, acquiring options becomes habitual. You can never create enough option value—and the longer you spend acquiring options, the harder it is to stop.
> The Yale undergraduate goes to work at McKinsey for two years, then comes to Harvard Business School, then graduates and goes to work Goldman Sachs and leaves after several years to work at Blackstone. Optionality abounds!
> This individual has merely acquired stamps of approval and has acquired safety net upon safety net. These safety nets don’t end up enabling big risk-taking—individuals just become habitual acquirers of safety nets. The comfort of a high-paying job at a prestigious firm surrounded by smart people is simply too much to give up. When that happens, the dreams that those options were meant to enable slowly recede into the background. For a few, those destinations are in fact their dreams come true—but for every one of those, there are ten entrepreneurs, artists, and restaurateurs that get trapped in those institutions.
[1] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/desai-commencem...