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

For a fairly science focused article I was a little surprised they referred to "bugs" in the casual / technically incorrect manner, as covered here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect#Distinguishing_featur...


As a lay-person who likes to read about bugs, I've come to expect the qualifier "true" to connote something special about bug's "mouth parts".

“Bats: Bug Scourge of the Skies!“

Indeed, although even if it is unplugged only a careless moron would step on a plug. Rather like stepping on Lego - yes it would hurt but it's easily avoided!

Great idea, although perhaps the use of "should" here ever so slightly carries a negative connotation that might be best avoided with alternate wording. Maybe something like:

"Alerting people to important sounds they cannot hear"?


Absolutely. This is a flight of fantasy. Just being able to imagine something doesn't really cut it for concept items any more - you've got to have something vaguely functional you can demonstrate before it's worth seeking external attention.


Nice idea but so utterly unenforceable. If you want to look at challenges around regulating advertising, the ASA in the UK is an interesting case, as when being set up in the 60s, they foresaw many of the difficulties and structured themselves to minimise them. If you're overly specific, people look for loopholes, so they focused on the spirit and they also went with a strong element of self-regulation whilst still having teeth where necessary. Even so, in the modern world, the internet spanning jurisdictions makes it all very hard to deal with.


au contraire.

internet have very few entry points, and they are all corrupted by advertising.


I thought Wikipedia recommended against overlinking, and on looking it up, they do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Link...


Some interesting points but he seems a bit less polished and confident than usual.


At 32:30, Jensen Huang mentions that he's not following a script and he's not using a teleprompter.


It's an interesting question as to whether an adopted word gets to be overridden by the preferences of the target!

Suppose the people of Edinburgh didn't happen to like Ee-dan-borghh as the French say it, that doesn't make the French pronunciation "wrong".


I agree it's heavily accent dependent and I suspect the original compiler wasn't that aware of non-mainstream US accents.

It's interesting that many of these are only the same (initially at least) if you've been sloppy/ignorant in your pronunciation and then those become baked in ways of saying something.

We're due to get a lot more of these given how often you hear influencers guessing at what to me seem fairly mainstream pronunciations!

These are often a way that TTS systems slip up most obviously. A lockdown project I tinkered with several years back was a small (traditional) LM that had been fed with tagged examples and could thus predict fairly well the best sense for a particular case. It made a huge difference to perceived quality. Now of course, many TTS cope with this fairly well but you still hear the off slip up!


Interesting.

Also, the article mentions the AGA chip with no introduction of it. Some sort of editing mix up?


AI was not there, not trained properly. Let it go back to writing code.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: