HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | ch4s3's commentslogin

I look forward to investing in Bridge Coin.

I’d have gone with Hava.

Shorter is better.

I also like the ambiguity around whether or not you pronounce the H.

Of course you do, because that makes it sound like the Hispanic pronunciation of Java.

Unless you speak Spanish and then it would sound like Ava, which is conveniently not a word already.

Oops? When I ask Google Translate to pronounce Java in Spanish, I can hear the H. Is that wrong?

It’s correct, but Hava would be pronounced Ava.

It’s funny, this is exactly how I used opus to design an iOS app I’m building. Unfortunately fable was released and it seems my taste lines up with fable’s training quite a bit[1]. Now my app looks like ai anyway. You win some you lose some I guess.

[1] https://onda-cast.github.io/onda/


Before everything looked like bootstrap or one of the other 5 design systems. Website? Hero Image, 3 Colums, footer. This was peak design half a decade ago.

I am deeply offended by the bootstrap comparison, I was more of a Milligram guy in the 2010s.

You're referencing this study[1] ,which is a modeling study, not observational data and it attributes only half of that number to climate change. It also includes this strong caveat:

"Due to data limitations, adaptation indicators such as access to air conditioning and healthcare resources were not included, and GDP per capita was used as a proxy."

I'm sure this analysis is directionally right, but it's not defensible to use the 178,000 number. Moreover extrapolating out into the future based on such an analysis seem fraught at best.

[1]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7618246/


shrug.

Sure. There are weaknesses in the study, it doesn't change the fact that there was a significant increase in the number of deaths.

Hiding behind the claims that studies of complex systems are not completely valid because of a lack of rigor in the process or a weakness in the data are easy to overlook when governments around the world (including mine in Canada) are routinely fudging the numbers to achieve political goals.

People are dying from climate change in record numbers, and it's going to get a lot worse, and criticizing the quality of the studies does absolutely nothing helpful.


Im not hiding behind anything, I was pretty clear that I think it’s directionally correct. However 90k deaths out of 8 billion people is not particularly significant. It’s an order of magnitude lower than a typical flu season. It’s roughly 2x the number of US auto crash related deaths, but global. I think you’re making it sound far more dire than it is.

While it’s important it seems like a tractable problem in a lot of ways, and the study’s lack of data on AC use is a serious flaw.


> Why mess with an interpreter if you don't have to?

I mean I haven’t touched Ruby in years but if you’ve got tokens to burn, who cares? Compute is pretty cheap these days and Ruby is usually fast enough for web stuff, and as far as I can tell 2nd hand the robots write it just fine.

And I say this as someone building a strongly typed programming language that compiles to native code.


Maybe not the most popular answer, but... because JIT?

Is Altman planning to annex the Sudetenland?

> Is Altman planning to annex the Sudetenland?

No, he's not a literalist throwback. But he is planning to glorify and expand his OpenAI reich.


This is insanely hyperbolic. OepnAI is not a "reich" there is no empire here, it's a company and some data centers. They don't have paramilitary thugs, territorial ambitions, or genocidal intent. They're just a run of the mill company run by an asshole.

> This is insanely hyperbolic. OepnAI is not a "reich" there is no empire here, it's a company and some data centers. They don't have paramilitary thugs, territorial ambitions, or genocidal intent.

I think there's something like a "reich" here, but don't take the comparison too literally. OpenAI wants to invade society and change it to match their vision, and they're going to do everything in their power (which is quite a lot), to make it go in their direction, and they care little about the harm they will cause. The rest of us are just Czechs to them.


> OpenAI wants to invade society

Again this is super hyperbolic.

> going to do everything in their power (which is quite a lot)

No it's not a lot. They are heavily bound by law, they're struggling against local zoning just like everyone else.

Look I get it, Sam Atlman is an incredibly ghoulish person but the hitler comparisons are just fucking dumb and everyone should aspire to better discourse here.


> They don't have paramilitary thugs

In many municipalities across the country they have purchased the police department, made them to sign NDAs, and had them arrest people for speaking against data centers in open forums.


OpenAI has not purchased any police departments this is a lie.

No, he just wants you cut off from society if you don't submit your eye to his orb and he doesn't want you to be able to use this thing that he claims is so powerful unless he has total authority over who can and cannot use it and what for.

Or better yet, invest in pipes.

I'm sure it could be done, but it would cost a fortune. My understanding is the canals were built to distribute water to farmers, and conservation/evaporation wasn't really much of a consideration because California had plenty of water back then.

BTW, I used to swim in those same canals around Modesto and Turlock as a kid. So gross.



Canal sized pipes?

I'm pretty sure those are called tunnels

400+ miles of 20m tunnels. How much cheaper is that going to be?

I'm being a bit filp, I don't literally mean to do it.

And suddenly you can build something else on those pipelines?

Literally in the article.

According to AI, that pipe would only need to be 43 Feet in diameter, only 43 feet wide. Pretty sure they have that at Home Depot.

You wouldn't do it that way. You would have several 10 foot diameter pipes (which they already make, and are small enough to fit on a truck). That way when one pipe has a problem you can shut it off an still get most of your flow. A lot more expensive than an open canal though.


Congratulations for their stunt. That doesn't mean anyone else should follow that though. There are lots of disadvantages to large tunnels and large pipes and so I would still recommend for most that a different path should be taken.

As an engineer and expert on this though, I'm not an expert. I've looked into it just enough to know that I would expect that it would just not be worth it, but maybe I'm wrong for your case


> it would just not be worth it

That is my entire point. Even with many smaller pipes it has not been worth it. A big trench is just more affordable and covering it is probably a better option than replacing it.


Populists of all stripes love tariffs and the illusory promise of autarky. We didn’t see Biden remove any of Trump 1’s tariffs and not a single Democrat in congress has committed to repealing the tariffs.

Looked at another way, shale natural gas has largely displaced coal which emits more CO2 and can be burned in the same power plants. This base load allows for more wind and solar. Natural gas is a great bridge fuel.


If you could remove a gigaton of usable coal from the world and replace it with an equivalent amount of natural gas, that would be a nice improvement.

When the natural gas is displacing coal by being cheaper, that's pretty bad in the long run. We're still probably going to use that coal later, and cheaper fossil fuels reduce the price pressure to install renewables.


We probably won’t go back to coal, most of the cheap high quality surface level coal is gone and we have a lot of natural gas. We also may see a resurgence of nuclear power and a lot more solar of course.


If we were running out of cheap coal anyway then we would have been better off without the surge in natural gas.

Higher prices would promote a faster shift directly from coal to solar (or nuclear if the price works out). And there was already enough natural gas production to fill the gaps that solar, wind, and batteries can't fill.


> and can be burned in the same power plants

I don't believe nat gas is burned in the same plants as coal.


Most "closed coal plants" in the US are really plants that retrofitted to use nat gas.

here's a decent recap (now a couple years out of date)

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44636


Ah, cool.


It’s a straightforward retrofit.


Your talking about a bunch of books that are out of print and sat unsold for years in a warehouse somewhere. The rights holders could print another run tomorrow if they wanted, or better yet digitize them but they don’t. Where’s your ire for the rights holders who sit on these books and don’t do anything with the ?


It's the collective action of losing access to information that's the issue, not the potential of the book itself.

Regardless, these books were available. Researchers, hobbyists - many people have and will find value.

Justifying the destruction of information for a for-profit company is bizarre.


Destruction of books is normal and totally OK. Publishing houses do it daily in the thousands. When you own something, you can choose how to dispose of it. Come back when you have the title of actually valuable rare books that were bought and destroyed. The 404 article was not well researched in this regard.

The emotional reaction we're conditioned to have hearkens back to 1940s Germany, where the goal was to have people burn all the copies of existing works. But this is not that. They are going for "one of each book" so they have a comprehensive corpus of works to train from. They are willing to buy books to obtain this corpus. It sounds like the system working exactly as intended, with even the book sellers selling these books saying they are "dead inventory".

There's a time to be breathless about "destroying all of humanity's knowledge", but let's wait until it's actually happening.

Again, I'm am very anxious for anyone to come forward with credible information about any valuable/rare/irreplaceable book that was destroyed in this process. So far zero people have been able to do this, probably because they are buying the books in bulk and want to obtain them as cheaply as possible. Book sellers will know the value of any actually rare/valuable books, and would charge accordingly, which would be pointless for e.g. Amazon to pay. They don't need some crazy first edition, they just need some copy to digitize. The incentives just don't add up to "Amazon is buying priceless art and burning it!" the way the narrative suggests.


The publishers and rights holders still have the text, and the books themselves weren’t being accessed just sitting in a warehouse. This is a trivial problem to solve, digitize them.


[flagged]

It’s their fault they don’t print more of them pr digitize them, yes. The fact is though, most of these books weren’t selling and no one wanted them.


They legally bought the books they are destroying.

I have every right to burn all the books I possess. And so should they.


the argument of some hypothetical "right to burn all the books i possess" is not really the topic of discussion here. it's not a "can" argument, it's a "should" argument.


> it's not a "can" argument, it's a "should" argument.

When you take a pitchfork against all the libraries out there who either refuse donations, or destroy the donated books, then we'll talk.

As plenty of people have pointed out, no one has shown that anything of value has really been lost. Either the works are still available for you to obtain (i.e. they didn't destroy the last version), or they are things no one wanted.

And while it hasn't come up in this thread, it was the last time it was discussed: These companies are legally obligated to destroy the books. It is illegal to scan the book, keep the scanned copy, and sell/donate the physical books. If you don't like that, change copyright law.


[flagged]

They have no more right to destroy cultural artifacts than you do. It's a red herring, as no one has demonstrated a single loss of a cultural artifact. What was destroyed, that satisfies:

1. You cannot obtain elsewhere

2. That anyone cares about

Destroying a copy of a Harry Potter is not a loss of a cultural artifact if I can still buy the book at a store.

Go ahead and start a campaign: For all who are upset by this, list your physical address, and tell everyone to mail their unwanted books to those on the list instead of destroying them.

The catch is the recipients are not allowed to destroy them. Then we'll see how much those complaining value culture.


Someone needs to write an updated version of Fahrenheit 451, maybe titled Fahrenheit-451GB-A32.


The version where it's legal to own books...?


I'm thinking more of a future where big tech successfully moves the overton window for AI, people gradually rely on getting information/entertainment from LLM's more than books, then it can follow the regular plotline of 451 with the public voting to ban books.


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

Search: