It was Kamala, bro. biden was replaced by a humanoid robot for his 12 last months in office. trump was one of the founders and the CEO (Chief Executed Officer) of that robot company. he's also gonna be the next Pope. just you wait ...
Aims aside, did you even read the article? This will mostly end anonymity online and require heavier policing of content.
A child might see something they shouldn't walking down the street, strolling thru the park, visiting the local zoo, or visiting an ice cream parlor. Should those places be requiring identification and hiring extra security guards to wander around making sure nobody is saying it doing anything politically objectionable?
Let's not accept creeping digital tyranny with self-assuring complacency... call or write (preferably snail mail) your congresspeople!!
Reading, writing, and math are foundational skills that, aside from having enormous utility in their own right, are also crucial for developing sharp, creative, and analytical minds.
Take writing as an example: it challenges you to organize your thoughts, patch up the weaknesses of your arguments, and find effective means of connecting with your audience. In so doing, you restructure your own understanding of the world, deepening your expertise and mental schemas. That's something an LLM can't do.
You're ignoring shaping effects though. Nobody prefers living in a deeply divided society. Instead, filter bubbles help bad actors (including foreign adversaries, disgruntled losers, political opportunist, and garden-variety edgelords) accelerate fractionalization. Moreover, social media deliberately elevates incendiary content because outage drives engagement.
These social media sites could be designed for consensus-building and we would see very different outcomes for society.
It's not hypocritical to want the democracy that works instead of the one that self-disintegrates.
I'm not sure I understand. How do you square "nobody prefers living in a deeply divided society" with "outrage drives engagement"? This is the hypocrisy I was describing. Aren't people, including you and I, choosing this willingly, every day? What is more democratic than that?
And having to listen to disgruntled losers, political opportunists, and garden-variety edgelords is democracy in practice. I do agree with you that foreign adversaries are a huge issue with democracy, with regard to the internet specifically.
At the same time, I think you are ignoring how diverse people really are. There's no consensus to be had when dealing with mutual exclusives, no matter what method is chosen.
Perhaps the solution is to lean further into fractionalization, but in a peaceful and constructive way. That might mean the destruction of democracy, but I think this just points to democracy not being a good inclusive system to begin with.
In a similar vein, HTTP header smuggling attacks exploit differences in header parsing. For instance, a reverse proxy and a web server might handle repetition of headers or the presence of whitespace differently.
This is the Hacker News community. Let's be constructive and civil. Your comment would have more interesting and relevant if you had explained why this trading strategy is a bad idea instead of just labeling it as "idiotic".
* In deferrence to Boglehead philosophy, hedging bets is a fool's errand because the idea is you lose your money the more you touch it. Make a plan, invest, and then hold hold hold staying the course come hell or high water.
* If you truly want to reduce or eliminate risk, the best way is to simply cash out. A $1 bill will always be a $1 bill with absolute certainty.
As a boglehead... that's just not how it works in the real world. Some people would treat the loss of $X worse than the gain of $X is good. Thus, they don't have linear value for money (no one really does... if you lose 90% of your bank account, you still have dinner tonight; if you lose all of it, you might not).
Some people want to come out neutral or lose a guaranteed small amount, rather than the chance to lose or gain the same amount. I'd pay $5 to avoid having to flip a $10k +/- coin. Thus, if I knew I would lose $10k if X got elected, I could place a $10k bet for Y to win.
> Some people would treat the loss of $X worse than the gain of $X is good
Most people. "Loss aversion refers to a cognitive bias in which the same situation is perceived as worse if it is framed as a loss, rather than a gain" [1].
> I'd pay $5 to avoid having to flip a $10k +/- coin
Risk aversion. Seemingly related, but in fact quite rational.
> In deferrence to Boglehead philosophy, hedging bets is a fool's errand
The flagged comment didn't say that hedging was idiotic, but implied that the specific hedge mentioned was idiotic, yet didn't give any reason for calling it such.
>$1 bill will always be a $1 bill with absolute certainty
