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

First, I absolutely hate having to scroll and scroll and scroll and scroll to try and figure out what's going on.

Second, I read this:

"The current prototypes already decode open-ended silent speech in real time, and accuracy continues to improve as we collect more data and train larger models. Like any input method, it can occasionally get something wrong, so the product is designed to use context and easy corrections rather than pretending errors never happen."

And I have to ask, does this mean everything I vocalize is being sent to an unknown server to be analyzed, potentially read by a person, and then used to train your model further? Because that's clearly not going to fly for either me or my employer. You need to be crystal clear what information people are potentially sharing with you before they purchase your devices.


They do not state anything clearly.


Clearly not the case if N > 0 people in this comment section have connected it to reality in their own form and to other sources.

I think you are internally convinced that it has nothing to say because you do not want it to have anything to say.


I started reading it and did myself a favor by stopping. It seems more like some stream of consciousness blathering rather than something I devote my time to.


Perhaps you would find some growth in expanding what you consider worthy of your time, and sharpening what you consider "stream of consciousness blathering."

It's a letter. Letters are streams of consciousness. There's nothing here that's blathering.


It wasn't long ago that companies like Google were advocating for zero trust networks that avoid the need for VPNs!


But what they mean by that was that the application (Gitlab in this case) should be behind a IAP proxy (https://docs.cloud.google.com/iap/docs) or something, not that you just put it on the public internet. Also defined here in the zero trust docs (https://docs.cloud.google.com/architecture/framework/securit...).


Zero trust is more like you need strong authentication like FIDO on the webapp even if it's behind the VPN, not that you get rid of defense in depth.

Zero trust ≠ publicly accessible.

And zero trust makes sense, once one service behind a VPN is compromised attackers can potentially move laterally, zero trust mitigates that


that works too

For personal services, even something as simple as HTTP basic auth on the webserver dramatically reduces the attack surface by blocking all probers and drive-by attacks.


That is more or less completely untrue.


Trust in media today is at its lowest in history.

You understand that 911 is a central dispatcher, not to the police specifically, right? That they default more to the police is a completely different issue.

And I much prefer only having to worry about remembering 911. In Norway I'm supposed to remember to call 112 for the police, 110 if there's a fire, and 113 if I need an ambulance or am having a medical emergency.


Oh great, because in Germany it's exactly the other way around. 110 is police, 112 is firefighters and ambulance.


Sure. But if you dial 110 by mistake and meant to dial 112, they will either help you regardless (many emergency dispatchers are colocated) or simply transfer you to where you meant to call.


>>That they default more to the police is a completely different issue.

That is literally what this article is about though, no?


From your description it sounds like 112 and 911 function more or less the same, you call and depending on the problem a dispatcher sends police, fire, or medical.

The issue described with 911 is that the dispatcher will default to the police for something like a mental health crisis which might escalate things to violence. The solution is to change how these calls are handled by the dispatchers and first responders. There already is a centralized number.


It feels more like a writing exercise - too many extraneous details right from the start: "I am a LegalTech Attorney leading a developer team" feel necessary if you're telling a story, but is completely irrelevant if you're reporting an issue. And $5.04?? Who knows their spending requirements to that level of specificity?

Is it possible? I guess, but I doubt they're being honest about what was being displayed on the screen.


Not trending down anywhere near enough. Their PE Ratio is absurd, but it definitely proves the adage that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

And as a nerd, while it's a cool demo in a controlled environment, cars like that are the last thing I want on the road near me as a driver, passenger, or pedestrian!


You can only RECEIVE 500 emails per month on either your free or $4/month plan?!? That's completely and utterly insane.


"I had to submit a special request before I could send emails to new addresses that had not previously messaged me."

sounds even more insane, completely unusable service, I mean if the client sends me automated emails from their system on behalf of the PMs, I would need to submit request to reply to each PM with their individual address? insanity unless they meant domain which would be a bit more sensible


Sorry if that was unclear. It is just to “unlock” email sending and is a one time thing for the domain.


Fastmail is expensive. The author mentions Purelymail at around $10/year compared to $60/year for Fastmail.


Happy Purelymail user here. $10/year is the default plan, on advanced pricing I end up paying less than $5/year which is absolutely crazy.


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

Search: