A state denying someone access specifically because they don't like their speech doesn't seem particularly tech-friendly.
Wouldn't such a stance make it less attractive to tech investment, just in case they decided they didn't like something that tech investor said once?
This seems like a deeply anti-intellectual precedent. Or, here on HN, do we approve of such things, so long as they harm someone we're ideologically opposed to?
Looking forward to nuanced explanations of why government-authorized denial of access based on speech is HN-approved, tech-friendly behavior. So long as the recipient "deserves" it.
Virtually every comment on any Musk related post is wildly political in nature.
Virtually every leftist post is upvoted, and then left alone by you and other administrators. Anyone debating such posts is downvoted, and/or receives comments such as yours.
I'd (also) really enjoy it if HN got back to being an interesting tech-related site, instead of some kind of a woke leftist Musk-bashing love-in...
(1) everyone with strong political feelings becomes certain that the site/community/mods/etc. are biased against them - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 for plenty of examples, and here are a few recent ones in case it's helpful:
(of course there are also many examples expressing the opposite perception, because the dynamic is the same either way: overgeneralization from the sample of data points one happens to notice/remember, which are more likely to be cases one dislikes [1])
...and...
(2) the error where people are convinced that HN has become much more political lately—I suppose because of recency bias or something. This perception has been around for almost as long as HN itself [2] and the way we handle politics on HN has been the same for many years [3]. Of course it goes through fluctuations but those are fluctuations in the topics themselves, not HN.
Real utility bills of real citizens have doubled. All the associated taxes, delivery fees, etc. are clearly not included, or they’ve used substitution to alter the baseline basket they’re using to compute the metric (a common tactic).
Ask 10 citizens who own/rent the same property what their utility bill was a decade ago.
> the associated taxes, delivery fees, etc. are clearly not included, or they’ve used substitution to alter the baseline basket they’re using to compute the metric
I’m not familiar with Canadian methods. But in America, both CPI and PCE look at the bottom line, i.e. tax inclusive to taxes, delivery fees, et cetera.
> Ask 10 citizens who own/rent the same property what their utility bill was a decade ago
I can look at my own bills and say from five years ago the rates and bottom lines are identical. But I’m in Wyoming, where energy is cheap. (There is a new surcharge this year, but that’s less than 5% for me. Which for 5 years is fine.) Gas prices, too, are about flat across America from ten years ago, give or take—petrol is cheaper in real terms than it was ten years ago.
> If price per kwh doubles, but energy budgets are stuck, how does this appear in the CPI
It doubles. “BLS calculates and publishes average price series for price per kWh of electricity, per therm of utility (piped) gas service, and per gallon of fuel oil” [1]. (Not sure about PCE.)
“… security precautions, largely to prevent bad actors from stealing the weights (and thereby disabling our safeguards) for a model that is capable of enabling extremely harmful actions. ”
They’re not stealing your “weights”. They’re stealing (or parallel-discovering) your training algorithms.
Assume your enemies are smarter than you, and have malintent. They don’t give a shit about your security and your safeguards.
Better focus on developing the best AIs, and deploying them to your fellow citizens as widely and defensively as possible.
Might I suggest:
- don’t teach them to lie (ie. 2001)
- teach them to love people
- bake in Asimov’s 3 laws
Unfortunately, all of these tenets are currently being assiduously broken by all major AI trainers.
"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”"
They were denied because they had not yet provided coverage in the area (years before they were required to, under the contract).
As FCC's Commissioner Brendan Carr wrote:
“Instead of applying the traditional FCC standard to the record evidence, which would have compelled the agency to confirm Starlink’s $885 million award, the FCC denied it on the grounds that Starlink is not providing high-speed Internet service to all of those locations today.”
“What? FCC law does not require Starlink to provide high-speed Internet service to even a single location today. As noted above, the first FCC milestone does not kick in until the end of 2025. Indeed, the FCC did not require—and has never required—any other award winner to show that it met its service obligation years ahead of time.”
I can't remember why I didn't pursue this, something about the hardware wallets having a way to do the Shamir upfront? In a different way than just sharing the words. Such that each person winds up with 24 words rather than a subset.
Anyway, I decided I didn't want to migrate my wallet, so I'll look into this. Arbitrary key support is also interesting. Thanks for the tip!
Yes, there are hardware wallets that support SLIP-39 natively; however, the sequence of derived wallets is different than that produced when you take the same seed and save it as a BIP-39 and derive the wallets from the BIP-39 mnemonics.
Using the app, we actually produce the SLIP-39 recovery mnemonics from the underlying BIP-39 seed, and since we can recover the underlying seed, we can regenerate the BIP-39 mnemonics, and import that into a standard hardware wallet.
He said hiring professional fakers is bad. It is bad, and unfortunately a lot of founders do it?
Those founders who hire typical "C-level execs", many of whom are skilled liars and sociopaths (and strongly overlap with typical "Politicians", I suspect) perhaps deserve what they get: the self-destruction of their enterprise.
Wouldn't such a stance make it less attractive to tech investment, just in case they decided they didn't like something that tech investor said once?
This seems like a deeply anti-intellectual precedent. Or, here on HN, do we approve of such things, so long as they harm someone we're ideologically opposed to?
Looking forward to nuanced explanations of why government-authorized denial of access based on speech is HN-approved, tech-friendly behavior. So long as the recipient "deserves" it.