Whether it be corporates, Eiffel Tower management, or religious groups, I guess the new norm is - better to ask for forgiveness.

I am Indian origin so full disclosure done. I saw a picture of the group's 93 year old head in ascetic robes, the one who does not see women, have a picture below Eiffel Tower for memories. Sir, what part of asceticism do you teach?

Maybe 93 years of not seeing women and touching one might pose danger to their health? I assume if the old man accidentally bump the lady, the heart would beat so fast and blood rushing away from brain to some place down there which might kill him? Probably staying in cave or all-male monastery would be a wiser choice.

Nature decays, but latinum lasts forever.

- Rule of Acquisition 102

... or frustrated. "I have my quota of jiras to meet, and this person is taking up too much of my time when it was such a simple issue which no one complains about". Not a good customer service mindset, but frustration happens.

What made you make that assessment?

- Three different instances of "The X is Y" in a single short comment

- Relatively new account, "AI Engineer building agentic systems"

- Most past comments contain em-dashes, more "The X is Y", etc.

What triggered me to ask was because I can see myself writing that. Not the content but the style. In the old days, I will spend time finessing an argument and feel happy about it. But with the pace nowadays plus the AI, it is a different world, so do not know.

I am curious. When you put this money in kids names, do they (or we) get taxed on this? If we save on taxes, then for a person (or their child) with high income and high state taxes, the benefit of the 3% may be larger than it appears to be. Of course, up to a limit.

Depends on jurisdiction, I'm sure.

In the US, kids taxes can be separate, but after a small exemption, they pay the parents rate on unearned income (investments, interest, etc). You have to have a pretty big balance before 3% apy gets past the exemption though.

I don't post often or ever so don't remember, you can't change the title to be more reflective of what it is?

A shorter version may be

> A Vermont pharmacy chain's AI implementation led to delays, incorrect information and privacy concerns.

You can try, but then a different group of people might come around and say it's editorializing.

That's 102 characters, HN's limit is 80.

Upvote to you if you understand the obsolete rationale why it’s 80.

Presumably to avoid having to line wrap for all the lynx users connecting to HN using DEC VT100 terminals.

Lets just break the lynx users for once, and see who complains. Change it to 81. Small enough to be invisible to most users, but when it breaks, someone will come up and shout. Better than going to 100, 132, 140 or 280.

Vermont pharmacy AI rollout leads to delays, misinformation and privacy concerns

(Exactly 80 characters)

Or with the Oxford Comma:

Vermont pharmacy AI rollout brings delays, misinformation, and privacy concerns

(79 characters)

I think in this case - where an editorialized title is better representative of the article, but the published title is too long - it’s usually left to someone like you to give a suggestion, publicly, which is then seen by @dang or their kith, who can then actually make spot adjustments. I personally approve of your editorialization, but that’s worth naught but a canker in a hedge

Why 80 characters? Are they storing them on punch cards?

Most of Dang's day is spent shuttling HN titles into the archives in a salt mine in Nevada in between moderation.

So at the end of it, if we win enough lawsuits to demarcate some knowledge out of bounds, sufficient enough to make a difference, I wonder how that will affect the AI. Make it dumber because it does not have that data, it make it smarter since it will need to reason better with smaller knowledge base.

> (sorry for mentioning the TC, but there is a reason for it ....

sorry to nitpick on this, but the story did not expand on this despite the pronouncement that there is a reason. Maybe it was subtle, but then let it be subtle.

Have seen this so many times. And like you, having spent decades in tech, I know the cycle well. Some engineers know the problem today, but the directors will arrive at the same conclusion / concern 1-3 years later, when it becomes obvious that ... "oh this was wrong all along". But to be fair to them, they are dealing with a 1000 problems, not just this one, and that's where the management hierarchy you describe is completely liable (if someone could hold them liable).

I tried it once. Maybe 8-9 months back.I recall doing it soon after one travel, so that's why I can pinpoint it and this may be useful to figure which AI versions were available then.

The challenge is length and the context window. I had to own the plot since once it compacts, it has already lost the plot :)

I will give it pointers and tell where to go next. It will do it but either 1) stop after 3-4 paragraphs, or 2) write in a totally different direction than I expected. So I will nudge it to course correct, and it will do it. And then you keep iterating.

It was a good experiment for a couple of days. It saved me typing and it sometimes gave me lines of thinking that were interesting. But nothing that could be published.

But now that I think about it, I found a use case. If only GRRM could use its help :)