Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | syrgian's commentslogin

How is Russia's army becoming stronger? They have lost so much people and equipment. Why would they attack EU when they can't defeat Ukraine after so many years? Are you suggesting they will perform a suicide attack against EU, cause as much damage as they can, and get absolutely destroyed in return?

Russia is making a profit under EU sanctions with oil sales to the EU, especially to Greece and Spain. If they're not using that to become stronger they are complete morons.

Let's say we were in an alternative reality were we had reached this quality of token prediction with just Markov chains. Would you argue that those would also be conscious? Or is the obfuscated behavior of transformers part of the possibility of consciousness?

Well if that's all that's required then yes. It's merely the substrate. But we know that's unlikely.

It's the emergent properties that matter. In abstract. Separate the physical and abstract of what is going on here

An alien gas cloud may be out there and sentient/conscious for all we know.


I am a dog owner, and I agree that a loose and aggressive dog is a liability to humanity and you are making everyone a favor if you kill it even if you could have escaped (e.g. you manage to get into your car in time). If it was attacking you, it could be a child (or another dog, too) next time. I would say that even a loose, non aggressive dog of a breed that is very statistically likely to mangle people (e.g. Bully XL) should be taken away from their owners that same day.


As a fellow dog owner I feel obligated to point out that not all barking is aggressive.

People not used to dogs often seem to think it is, and I'd hate for people to start shooting dogs just because they bark. Dogs bark, it's what they do.


I think there should be mandatory courses the owner needs to take to own these breeds (and pass the exam with satisfactory marks), loose or not if one slip of a leash can lead to a kid getting mangled then it's not safe for the owner to walk even a leashed untrained dog.


My wife runs https://www.saviament.com/, an open-access educational website in Catalan. She also sells printable content following the same style as the website, which has exploded in popularity this year and has become a decent source of income.


Molt bé!


Wouldn't all the houses in the village lose way more than £400 in value?

Last I was comparing houses in a neighborhood, the houses near a powerline were consistently worth 15k-30k less (3-6% less).


Yes, but you have to factor in that you can't eat houses.

Being given money immediately for your living costs might be more attractive to you, than trying to retain value in an asset you'll only realise in 20 years time when you sell it, or perhaps not at all if you die first.


London murder rate per million in 2024: 11.6 NYC murder rate per million in 2024: 43

And from what I read, NYC is exceptionally safe for a US city, and London is exceptionally unsafe for a UK city.


104 murders in London in 24/25, 535 in the whole of the UK for the same period

Overall crime and especially violent crime is falling in the UK but there are some well publicised hotspots - phone theft, shoplifting


What do you think that difference in homicide rates proves? It’s caused entirely by racial disparities in homicide victimization rate. The NYC homicide rate for white victims is about 9 per million: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_p... (7% of 343 homicides divided by 2.7 million). The homicide rate among white people in London was also about 9 per million: https://aoav.org.uk/2024/londons-2023-murders-examined-key-f... (43% of 103 homicides divided by 4.7 million).

It seems unlikely that this pattern of homicides would be explain by differences in general government policies between the U.S. and UK, such as healthcare policies.


The post I was replying to was edited and originally claimed that London had higher murder rate than New York.


NYC is very safe for an American city, but London is not particularly unsafe for a UK one; its violent crime rate is about average for England as a whole.


You are right. Should not have relied on the most likely LLM-generated description attached to the data. I trusted it because I already had the wrong impression that it was less safe, but that was just because the raw number of crimes is high because it is very populated.


As a general rule of thumb, probably never trust anything an LLM says; they're bad at things.

(I'm particularly unsurprised that they'd get confused about _London_, because, well, what is a London anyway? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London . Even _human_ writers sometimes get confused about stats for London.)


Same boat. I have a 6D Mark II since 7 years ago now, and I misguidedly was counting on ML to be released within 3 years of my purchase. But luckily, it's still a fantastic camera.


Can't the Western government strongarm the receiving bank by threatening to kick them out of SEPA/ACH/Fediwire?


There is only so much you can do - you kick them out for everything and thus further cutoff the country and that in turn means you have less influence in the future.


Something so major (global finances), over an issue so minor (fraud on an individual basis)? Serious organizations don't play games like that.


If you are going scam people with locked iPhones over the internet, why send an iPhone at all? You should just send a literal paperweight. It will serve the same purpose. It's not like the marketplace will be like "It's an iPhone. Even if it is locked, the seller is right. We will remove the negative rating and let the seller keep their reputation".

By the way, I recently sold an iPhone 8 (through App, but the transfer was in person) and out of 5 potential buyers, all of them asked the same three questions: "Is it on and unlocked?, is it carrier sim-locked?, which is the battery %?".


It seems to me that it would increase safety, but I guess only a simulation could truly tell. I understand your take, but I have a different one: most accidents happens when someone makes a mistake at stop light changes. Less cars stopping/starting at red lights seems less chances for accidents to me.

Let's go with an absurd example: If you multiplied by 5 both the length of red and green stages, I would expect much less accidents per day, but it would obviously also be much more frustrating to move around (and possibly more accidents if the amount of infractions increase because of the frustration). If you divided them by 2, I would expect much more accidents of all kinds.


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

Search: