I am very curious on your definition and usage of 'fair' there, and whether you would call the LLM etc sector as it stands now, but hypothetically absent deepseek say, a 'fair market'. (If not, why not?)
Reminds me of a) the breathtaking vox pop done by the BBC [0] in 1978 as metric adoption nipped at their imperial heels, and some spectacularly bewildered misunderstandings manifested -- the first citizen here inventing the word kilomileometres and (I wish she were joking) asserting that your car's mileage is reduced because you'll be using litres,
and b) the comedy radio show I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, running since the 1970's but includes a game called Mornington Crescent [1] (since season 6) wherein the panel take it in turns to 'get to Mornington Crescent' using the London Underground map as a playing board. Many rules and variations are cited and vaguely explained, but it's all just made up -- nonetheless there has been an abundance of people who've listened to this madness, and then written to the BBC to demand a rulebook.
The point? Not sure. Does this reflect positively upon the some style of comedy favoured by the Brits, or negatively about their credulity? As a nominal Brit, I can't comment with any impartiality.
It is deeply offensive to the serious players of the game to suggest Mornington Crescent is "made up". Yes, to neophytes it can seem random and unstructured but it is preposterous to suggest game with such a lineage is fictional.
The Mornington Crescent Players Association (MCPA - often lovingly renlffered to as The Scottish Father) unanimously voted through the Flodden amendments last year. The Mornington Crescent Rules Committee (not to be confused with the Rules Committee of Mornington Crescent) will be voting on the topic on December 25th. Whereupon it will be passed to the International Board for ratification.
The only controversial point is it will be applied retroactively over the last decade, changing the results of no less than 3 world championship matches
> Does this reflect positively upon the some style of comedy favoured by the Brits, or negatively about their credulity?
People function by simplistic rules of thumb rather than understanding underlying principles. We all probably do it to some extent, simply because the world is too complex to understand in full. Some people do it to a greater extent.
A good example for the HN crowd is watching people with limited understanding of the technology use a computer or a phone. A lot rely heavily memorised sequences of actions. Put them in front of a slightly different GUI and they effectively have to relearn from scratch. Something as simple as a panel on the side instead of a start men plus taskbar will complete throw people. Now apply the same thinking elsewhere.
> The point? Not sure. Does this reflect positively upon the some style of comedy favoured by the Brits, or negatively about their credulity? As a nominal Brit, I can't comment with any impartiality.
You’re just bitter that you never spot the ostrich first.
Prosaically, one step removed: Mornington Crescent absolutely has rules, and the joy of the show is everyone on the show is playing by them.
Finding participant / sample sizes for this is difficult, as it seems to be somewhere between a systematic review and a meta-analysis, but heavier on the recommendations than the analysis.
(I went looking because the 'nearly all' thing sounded like a bit of a stretch. Not that I would be surprised if this were true, but I would be surprised if they could make that claim with much confidence.)
Yup - I recall when this feature was released, maybe a dozen years ago, with KDEConnect. Real QoL improvement. Glad to hear some other OS's are catching up.
I'd not heard of this model, and amusingly my first hit (4th in an incognito) for `Boox Palma` is a lengthy reddit-user rant from 2y ago about build quality, sluggish performance, and woeful battery life.
That aside, totally agree on the form factor. My first ebook reader was a pocketbook 360, which came bundled with a rigid cover (would snap onto the back while reading) and a 5" screen, when most ebook readers were around the 6" diagonal.
The size delta was significant as it meant the difference between fitting in a jacket pocket vs needing to carry a bag, and that really changes your likelihood to take it with you / read a book.
And its actually quite hard to get now as it has been replaced by Palma 2 which is even faster. You can actually watch youtube videos on it and it is better than one would expect.
I take the opposite view about size. I am already carrying a phone which is acceptable for reading on (or TTS to my headphones). If I expect to have the chance to read at length then I am willing to pack a larger ereader.
That wasn't my take - it was more broadly a 'given past statements and accompanying behaviour, we can't trust future statements to align with future behaviour'.
Can you more explicitly describe what the X and Y points you allude to are?
Every “6 months ago I said this!” added little to the article. In a real investigative report it would lay out the facts and fairly objectively state “6 months ago, Sam Altman was accused of …”
The article as a whole just seems libelous? Almost personal?
A blog is an opinion piece. The subject of interest, Sam Altman, is a public figure and CEO of one of the fastest growing tech companies. He's testified in front of Congress on AI regulation and has a lot of pull and influence on regulators. Some of the things and actions he's taken in the past are controversial, thus, thinkpieces get written. The AI industry is quickly en route to trillion dollar plus territory (already there if you count Nvidia as an AI company). There's a lot of money and emotions at stake for the AI gold rush. When someone is at the forefront of these types of things, like other public business figures with controversial tactics (Musk, Gates, Jobs, Kalanick, etc) it draws attention.
Well, sama managed to convince a lot of people to give his company billions, is making apocalyptic predictions that some CEOs take seriously etc. Making sure people at large realize the guy has a very loose relationship with truth, for many years, seems like public service. It's only libel if you spread false statements which Marcus is careful not to make.
> We never fail to find someone to defend colonization!
I think you are misrepresenting GP & parent's comments.
Yes, absolutely, totally, Brits have a well-deserved reputation of colonisation.
But as a hypothetical conundrum, who would you return the relics from a long expired society to -- the current (arguably quite distinct, religiously & culturally) administrations of those lands?
What moral right is exercised (or exercisable) of relics of, say, Atenism, crafted 3 to 4 thousand years ago -- locals with an orthogonal religion & culture, or foreigners with an orthogonal religion and culture?
(Personally I instinctively lean towards your take, albeit a little less abruptly - but I think it's all quite complicated - partly with the bizarre 'cultural birthright' thing, partly curator cred, less so the accessibility claims.)
you could, even though I disagree, use that argument for some artifacts, but surely not for the massive collection of things from Greece and Egypt. Those are pretty obvious you can return to the modern countries that sit on those lands.
Event if culture and religion has changed those artifacts are part of those peoples heritage, if it weren't then why would the UK care about Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall? Or Italians about the Coliseum?
Just a single anecdotal point but I'm from Latin America and while there's little indigenous blood in me I would still consider indigenous culture and artifacts as part of my culture and that's at the extreme end of colonisation as natives were pretty much wiped out.
> But as a hypothetical conundrum, who would you return the relics from a long expired society to -- the current (arguably quite distinct, religiously & culturally) administrations of those lands?
Has this ever been in doubt? With Egyptian artifacts, they’d go to Egypt, with looted Greek artifacts they’d go to Greece.
With the heads of Māori warriors, New Zealand Maori.
Are there any real world situations where it’s confusing as to who they would be returned to?
> Are there any real world situations where it’s confusing as to who they would be returned to?
Yes, many.
Artifacts whose creation predates the current dominant culture in a region (assuming nation state borders and names have morphed over the time), especially when that contemporary culture actively rejects those earlier cultures, are a prime example.
The Bamiyan Buddhas are a great example - or at least lead to a follow-up question to your question. If, say, the British Museum had transported artifacts of similar historical value (beauty, etc, whatever criteria you want to use) decades or centuries ago, but the ruling regime there now demanded their return, whilst making no secret of their intent to destroy those artifacts upon receipt -- what's would you advise the British Museum?
Beyond the dubious nature of geographical happenstance implying inarguable custodianship - another example of nuance to counter your 'everything is black and white' position would be around artifacts from pre-partition India (Pakistan), and who should own those, or more recently Yugoslav-era artifacts. There are myriad examples like these, of course.
Again, if you're happy to ignore the complexity and potential dubiousness of ancestry claims, or orthogonal religious / cultural values, etc - you're back to a geographical claim - 'there are people in roughly the same region as some different people, some time ago'.
> I argue that they should go back to where they were found.
Yes, again you're conflating where with who, and that was the crux of my questions to you in the previous post.
Unknown source locations - are a bit of a (minor) edge case I think, but aren't a major problem.
I have no strong opinions on Elgin Marbles, and I haven't been following any debate around that one. In the abstract, I suspect resolving one claim of ownership wouldn't assist in resolving much of 'the debate', but as I say, a bit ignorance on that specific example you cite.
I note TFA mentions 'normal' people 8 times, but never uses the word 'average'.
Whereas I think they are in fact describing 'average' people.
I suspect most HNers self-assess as normal, but are also self-aware enough to acknowledge (rightly or wrongly) they're not average.
Certainly I have felt overwhelmed with the 'why have they broken so many conventions?' sensation with, invariably, audio apps on microsoft platforms - but OTOH the implied expectation that all software should have a comparably broken UI as mildly modern microsoft word versions expresses a collective poverty of expectations.
Of course, Stallman strongly eschews the ambiguity and misdirection inherent in the phrase open source, and in this particular instance the considered use of 'free' or 'freedom' is precisely what we're now all upset about the impending loss of.
I am very curious on your definition and usage of 'fair' there, and whether you would call the LLM etc sector as it stands now, but hypothetically absent deepseek say, a 'fair market'. (If not, why not?)
reply