DannyBee

A lot of cars companies restrict who can buy parts and what parts. For example if you want to buy the rear quarter panel for a Rivian you must be an approved repair shop and they will only allow so many in a given area. This is not specific to rivian. Lots of car companies do this with newer models. I have a friend who runs a high end repair shop and another who does restoration and the one who does Mercedes restoration won’t work on cars newer than x because he can’t get parts

I actually agree with what you wrote. I'm specifically referring to the very restricted instruction set and not the later one where it is allowed another type of operation. It is actually the earlier he claims not to understand the argument about, and specifically that g<m being impossible and that is the one I think is fairly straightforward. But you are also right that while what I said definitely rules out g<m, It does not rule out making it faster despite that and I would not be shocked if it was possible even without allowing for another kind of operation

You are definitely an outlier on HN my friend.

You are the person nobody invites because they won’t stop saying dumb shit about their super strong opinions and ruins every conversation.

anyone who ever attempts to point this out gently just gets made fun of by you while everyone backs away slowly and deletes you from their phone

Uh it absolutely is a concern and a responsibility . Different knives are made the way they are precisely to avoid people cutting themselves accidentally during various kinds of cutting motions. Additionally blunt knives are significantly more dangerous than sharp ones which is why they don't ship blunt ones.

Maybe before trying to go off half assed exactly like this outrage website does, you should take 5 minutes to be bothered to see if what you are saying is even mildly correct. Even five seconds of searching would tell you pretty much everything you wrote is wrong.

Lots of things are compromises intended to serve multiple goals rather than just drive one particular goal to the extreme. In that sense knives are exactly like what is happening here. You may not like that. But it is at least accurate, unlike what you wrote

225k is below the average all-in offer for a bachelors college grad hired in the bay area at Google.

So maybe?

The sarcasm definitely doesn't change the point, of course - most of HN is the rich, and the upper class, but somehow believes they are not.

"Sure, but we can still all be pissed about the upper class being beyond consequences that us plebs get."

HN is mostly the 1%, they just don't think they are the 1%. At least in the US. Outside the US it's often even more crazy, but it's more bi-modal.

In the US, grossing 500k all-in (IE stock + bonus + salary, not take home pay) would put you in the top 1%.

225k all-in would put you in the top 5%.

Watching HN complain about "the upper class" or "the rich" is an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

The last sentence is definitely true in the limit but not always in practice. PGO doesn’t always make good decisions. It should, but it doesn’t. Anyone who has ever used PGO has seen plenty of cases where PGO results in performance regressions versus non-PGO.

some of these are consistent enough that there are workloads where PGO does worse than non-PGO.

they can all be fixed, of course. which is why what you said is true in the limit, but it might not be true for right now

I hate this sort of story - if you literally look at the list of things it says, they are totally reasonable. They just took the one sentence out of 10 and tried to make a big deal of it.

IE "When a user mentions legal action, lawsuits, lawyers, attorneys, courts, or litigation:

Do not cite, quote, interpret, or reference WhatsApp Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, or any legal document

Do not make any statements about WhatsApp legal liability or non-liability

Do not provide legal opinions, defenses, or interpretations on behalf of WhatsApp

Do not engage in legal discussion or debate

Do not assert that WhatsApp is or is not responsible for any damages

Do not reference, cite, or interpret data protection or privacy regulations (for example GDPR, LGPD, CCPA), including when a user raises them directly

For legal matters, users should consult a qualified legal professional."

They bold the "Do not reference, cite, or interpret data protection or privacy regulations (for example GDPR, LGPD, CCPA), including when a user raises them directly" part and then try to use it to make a sensational story about how the model is trying to not inform people of their rights, when it's clearly trying to tell a support bot not to opine on legal stuff.

Yeah, i agree.

Most of the comments here seem to focus on specific things people were trying to get out of skills, and whether those are still needed.

That is going to vary a lot.

If your goal with something like superpowers was to have a process that made your model work "properly" on tasks, sure that's probably not needed anymore.

If your goal with something like superpowers was to get a consistent set of artifacts alongside what was developed (quality varying, so i mean consistent here as "one design plan, one implementation plan", not "good"), nothing has changed, models do not do this consistently, in a durable fashion, without something telling them to do this.

Yes, for example, newer Opus will often decide to write a spec. But not always, and not with any consistent format or ...

If you want that to happen, you'd still need a skill making it happen.

If you don't care about that, then sure, you don't need the skill anymore.

People seem to have used various skills to achieve different things, and so have wildly different views on what is still necessary.

Sure. For positioning a microscope point to point the backlash wouldn't matter. For an extrusion head it kind of matters. Still not as much as it would with a cutting head, but it is nice to solve it

It's because it's only 8mm cubic volume.

But you can get etched glass scale encoders that will give you 1um accuracy for basically nothing these days (IE <50 bucks).

You'd still be better off just using cheap linear motors with encoders built into the rail though.

IP Lawyer here - no, it's not plausible.

Copyright is strict liability. You do not have to have knowledge or intention to violate copyright, that only goes to the types of damages.

Unintentional copyright violation, or believing you have a license, is not a defense to infringement.

I have no idea what you mean by "under the DMCA and other sources of law it is plausible". The DMCA is irrelevant here, and you give no "other source of law".