How do you demonstrate that User B earned their stablecoins via “salary, trading, mining, and etc.”; as opposed to through crime, whether the conventional crypto sort or through subverting currency controls?
What, other than money laundering, would motivate a person who had a supply of such stablecoins to want to supply them to into a market with currency controls? Is the concept there “I make my expat wages in dollars, I want to turn them back into $CURRENCY at the black market rate”?
Anyone who suffers from what? Why is St John’s Wort good for it?
I will never watch this type of video, but it sure does sounds like whatever affected @physicsgirl was awfully serious if it left her non-ambulatory for multiple years.
It sounds like maybe you’ve had a positive experience that you might be willing to elaborate on?
I didn't word it right. It should have been something like: "Add it to your list and research it if you're out of options". It helped me with some weird condition years ago which could have been depression but it had zero symptoms other than severe chronic fatigue, so maybe it wasn't.
> And what's with this HN pattern of acting all innocuous and going "uh... care to elaborate a little further? hmm?? hm???"
The 'pattern' is that comments are supposed to provide some value and not just generic statements. The HN community overall doesn't want the comment section to turn into a Facebook comment style section.
So if you're going to comment, at least have something to back it up or give something that contributes to the quality of the discussion.
If you advertise/recommend something it is your obligation to make the case for it. Not for the reader to research it. We should want this board to keep its high information value, not devolve into low information spam.
Recommendation to research something still can be useful. I didn't word it right. It should have been something like: "Add it to your list and research it if you're out of options". It helped me with some weird condition years ago which could have been depression but it had zero symptoms other than severe chronic fatigue, so maybe it wasn't.
Then again if it's your law firm, the one who's representing you; and doing so lets them build your case at half the cost in research hours... or lets them figure out whether they can take your case where it might not have been worth their time to see before? I don't know much about how these things work, but I could see where people I know might consent to such a thing.
I guess the profit is where the hazards lie! Skimming your landing page, it sounds like you're making meaningful efforts to compensate for the aspects of LLM that horrify us around here: sounds like you're primarily providing direct references to the "needles" in the case record haystack, rather than synthesized "insights"; serving the legal professionals themselves with a specific mundane research task of theirs rather than playing lawyer for consumers or purporting to produce polished results.
Better you than me, but the very best of luck to you, and congratulations on your launch.
I get why you’d want to distinguish yourself from competition that relies heavily on RAG, but “chatting” is putting it mildly.
I’d use RAG with prompts like “what was billed but did not produce a record”. Or rehydrating the context of, for example, the hospital’s own model for predicted drug interactions. I could see it being lucrative if that model produced those results without traceability.
I don’t think this is right. It reads backwards to me. Didn’t Roe, controversially, hold that abortion was protected as a function of constitutional protections related to privacy (in the due process clause of the 14th amendment—specifically as one form of the “liberty” you can’t be “deprived of” without “due process of law”)? Then attempted to explain in medically specific terms when exactly your pregnancy crosses over from being a matter of liberty/personal privacy into a matter that can be regulated or prohibited?
Then didn’t Dobbs basically work by undoing the idea that you can locate abortion rights in the due process clause, rather than somehow wrecking the constitutional amendment itself?
Roe purports to be about privacy. But it’s really about the second point you list, which is purporting to define when a fetus becomes sufficiently developed to warrant protection from the state. After all, nothing changes between conception and the day before birth from the point of view of privacy. Or heck, even the day after birth—you have a privacy right in your home, not only your person. So the “privacy” right isn’t holding up any weight. All the work is being done by the moral determination that a fetus in the first two trimesters isn’t sufficiently developed to warrant legal protection. Once you assert that killing an 8 week fetus is no different than having a body part removed, the work being done by privacy is trivial.
That latter question has nothing to do with privacy or the constitution. It’s a general moral judgment based on underlying biological facts. In that respect, Roe simply is an articulation of Harry Blackmun’s Methodist religious beliefs. The United Methodist Church came out strongly in favor of abortion legality in the 1960s. But there’s nothing in the constitution supporting the determination Roe reached and Roe didn’t even pretend there was.
There is a legal subtlety here that's often misunderstood (or misrepresented) by most pro-abortionists:
The right to privacy was curved out of the 9th Amendment in the district court decision (not the 4th or the 14th).
The Supreme court upheld the district court decision and went further by adding the protection of the 14th amendment as to how and when this privacy right can be abridged by the states (not without due process of law).
States must show a compelling interest to intervene in women's decision to abort, and this compelling interest ripens only after the first trimester of pregnancy.
I’m not sure he’d want to, it would seem like he might want to point to his own scam. But if he did, I imagine he could add back your TXT record after looking it up in any of a large number of historical DNS databases. I can’t vouch for the quality, but a casual Google suggests there are still many, primarily paid but some free-ish, in the mix. Examples:
Just as an additional datapoint, since I’m confused by fellow commenters’ confusion—I thought your narrative was clear, colorful, and entertaining, and I hope you’ll keep things so literary and engaging in your future contributions too :)
As with so many matters of crime, punishment, and high dudgeon, the physical reality of the situation always feels so banal. Dread Pirate Roberts’ lawless dark kingdom, where he commissions trans-national assassinations… looks a lot like a nerdy dude’s laptop on a municipal library table.
Yes, I thought it was an interesting blend of past and present. If this were a scene in a show or movie it could be edited beautifully - the reader, sitting alone in a corner, looks up and in a lucid, almost psychedelic way, the past comes to life with Ulbrict sitting in front of him, that unfold as he continues reading.
I’m surprised at the length of this gag, drawing on what seemed to me to be a particularly robust Wikipedia entry. Is the point that the article strikes you as juvenile, or that you feel like it unfairly makes touristic spectacle of something more complex than the treatment here reflects?
And without intending offense—is this a work of LLM? I’m curious because of the earnestly, completeness, and the slight flavor of “how do you do, fellow kids” in lines like “Talk about a plot twist!”
> And without intending offense—is this a work of LLM?
I suspect so, as ChatGPT generates a fairly similar output[1] from the prompt "put this into dialog form between two American 20 year olds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunkers_in_Albania". As an example (this was part of the first output it produced):
OP: "Jake: So get this - there was this leader named Enver Hoxha who was super paranoid about getting invaded. We're talking an average of almost 6 bunkers per square kilometer. They're literally everywhere - beaches, mountains, cities, even in hotel gardens!"
ChatGPT: "Jake: Okay, so get this: back in the Cold War, Albania’s leader, this guy Enver Hoxha, went totally paranoid. He thought everyone was gonna invade—like, NATO, the Soviets, literally everyone.
I retried the prompt twice - the first time[2], "so get this" was used again, and the second time[3] used the name "Jake" again. Hardly proof of LLM use, but it'd be a weird coincidence if not IMO.
I started reading the wikipedia article and just couldn't get into it. It all read like blah blah blah to me but why was it on the HN homepage? There must be something interesting about it. I've used the prompt "put this into dialog form between two American 20 year olds" many times. The output I was able to read no problem and actually enjoyed it. Any sort of dry text this works wonders for my brain being able to comprehend it. But judging by the downvotes I'm guessing this is just me!
See, now that seems like a pretty cool use case, I’m glad to hear this technique is serving you well! I guess it’s cases like these—where I’d be inclined to do the reverse, taking “20-year-old dialog” and asking Claude to give it to me straight—where the promise of LLM personalization shines…
I suspect the downvotes have less to do with your good intentions here, and more a mix of confusion over the context and HN’s hostility toward LLM content (which tends to have a low effort-to-quantity ratio).
Personally, I probably would have reacted more positively if you’d introduced your original comment with this explanation (although I’d suggest just leaving a link to the LLM conversation rather than pasting the whole thing).
Thank you for engaging on it!
But yeah, to me the LLM version strips out the most entertaining part: the pictures of these crazy things! Who but an autocrat could look at those and think “good idea”…
“More open access to information” is not the adversary’s goal, either. Is that goal served by preserving the adversary’s control over the information environment?
On Question 3 (Misdirection)—why is clicking “no thanks, I prefer a limited experience” the wrong answer? Why should I click the stuff I don’t want just in order to “learn about it”?
What, other than money laundering, would motivate a person who had a supply of such stablecoins to want to supply them to into a market with currency controls? Is the concept there “I make my expat wages in dollars, I want to turn them back into $CURRENCY at the black market rate”?
reply