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

Recently I searched Google for a slightly unlikely phrase — in quotation marks — and Google proudly told me that my phrase was grammatically correct.

And nothing else. They didn't give me any search results. Or even tell me there weren't any results. Or even give me a button to press to say "no, I really wanted to search the internet for this phrase".

And also I have zero interest in Google's opinion on English grammar and am frankly insulted to be offered it, although to be fair I'm probably in a minority worldwide on that one.

If I can't use Google to search the internet for things, then Google is eventually going to have a big problem.

Moving to another country is a nightmare because you cannot bring your phone number.

I am currently paying for a US phone number I don't meaningfully use, because it's not clear that all of my important account-holding organizations reliably support a two-factor/login confirmation strategy that isn't "US phone number".

My experience is that the major limiting factor in finding partners is whether people "click" with me, not whether people are single.

In other words I'm better off going to an event with my kind of people and looking for the 5% that are eligible singles, than going to an event with singles and looking for the 0.5% that are my kind of people.

Obviously this would be different if you're a person who likes almost everyone and is attractive to almost everyone — a golden retriever, as it were. I offer no opinion on whether many such people exist.

Arguably the problem is that copyright enforcement has been farmed out to private middlemen with a fast and loose process.

More than that, they need to clone a website and enter a date in the past. Then they need to fill out a form using DMCA sworn statement language. The must know what they're doing is illegal. That's not much of a deterrent when there's no real enforcement and it's so easy for these outfits to make a quick buck.

One big flaw is that anyone, anything, anywhere can submit a DMCA request/"demand." If they had to be done in person at a US courthouse then there would be a record of exactly who made the false claim. As they are now, they are functionally anonymous.

This might sound wacky, but the more pervasive AI becomes the more important it will become to link any significant requests to real humans. That might be legal requests, but it will also include financial services, etc.

> the more important it will become to link any significant requests to real humans

Remember during the resolution of the mortgage fraud / title insurance issue in the US people were coming forward and being videoed in depositions saying 'I was hired at this bank, my job was to sign forms, I had no idea what or why I was signing, I was just told these forms required a human signature, I signed thousands per week.'

Unfortunately it seems the legal system has already baked in a 'yes, a person signed, but they were too stupid to recognise what they were doing wasn't legal because they worked at a big company and assumed it must have been okay.'

I don't really know how you work around that sort of institutional acceptance of what must be some type of fraud.

The 'system' doesn't really when people seem to have decided 'well, if we break enough laws on a large enough scale there's nothing they can really do.'

Do you still feel uncomfortable if you cannot see outside the train at all (i.e. not even in peripheral vision)? My understanding was that the effect was caused by the scenery outside the window moving in a way that's incommensurate with what your sense of balance is telling you.

It's connected to how our attention works. Attention is very much tied to vision and, for instance, if you are rotating around your central axis (like a Sufi) and can manage not to focus visually on anything around you and do some "proprioceptive attention adjustments", you can keep spinning for quite a long time w/o getting dizzy. Of course you'll have to slow down slowly rather than just abruptly stop the rotation.

It tends to be better if I look out the window, it's the looking at a screen and my inner ear sensing the movement that mucks me up I think.

Interestingly, I don't get motion sickness in VR, which is the opposite problem (movement visually, none in reality).

Discreet users, or discrete users? (I initially assumed you meant discreet, i.e. not wanting to share login details, but the comment read oddly as a result.)

Savvy observation. I meant to say discrete, though there's a healthy bit of irony in the typo

I assume you're referring to the graph on the page you linked. Is there an explanation somewhere of exactly how it is calculated?

I tried to read the "article" underneath the graph but it just seems to be a disjointed collection of assertions strung together with inappropriate connectives and insane formatting.

The caption is a little vague, but it says the source is census data by which they mean the US Census Bureau which does an estimate of housing every year.

Moodys has a more technical analysis if you have patience to read it all using both census and realtor data:


Every rational number is a p-adic number (though not necessarily a p-adic integer, of course). So doesn't that mean p-adic numbers would be below rationals?

Sure, maybe. My broader point is that the tower would branch at some point.

This is speculative and based on a possibly not-representative sample, but what I've noticed from watching bodycam footage is that when the suspect asks for a supervisor, the police give negative/discouraging replies to the suspect while they are also calling a supervisor in the background.

I assume the intention is to comply with the letter of the law while maximizing the chance that the suspect will abandon the request and not force them to wait until the supervisor arrives.

Cops, in general understand the law very well, which makes them even more culpable for their abuses of it.

You see this quite often in the cases where the suspect wants to stop talking and speak to their attorney, and the detectives do the "Oh, yes, we'll let you call them in just one second, but first answer _____"

You're an AI, aren't you?

No I am not, it used to be thought useful on hnews to summarise & tl;dr the article.

I guess not so much now.

I think this looks like an interesting book and have pre-ordered it from Waterstones.

I was hoping to see a bit of hnews discussion on the article. I make and like art.

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