autuni

great products only take them so far, the question is are they great enough so people would be willing to pay the prices they'd need to ask if they would want to at least match their spending with their income

that's not the issue, it's about trust.

People who are careful with AI code that isn't audited will not suddenly trust AI audited AI code

I think most people see the issue there with the "well audited" part. You didn't know which developers just copy pasted stack overflow code together before either, but the rate at which that code came in was manageable for reviews, and supplementing reviews with AI doesn't really lower the concern for people concerned about the quality of the code.

The alternative would be to rely on self-policing, which is a bad idea. Not even because you can't trust people to not be lazy, but simply because there's also actively bad actors involved.

If the code is well reviewed/audited, of course it doesn't really matter or not if it was hand-typed or generated, it's (at least for me) more of a question on how to manage quality control.

can't wait for the ad-fueled cheap tiers right when some games publish as streaming only

that's a fair point and that part is indeed interesting to a degree, and I would fully agree if it wouldn't be stated multiple times that the author did not actually read, i.e., properly engage with, any of the involved papers, but only used an LLM to talk about them. The author also emphasizes that they did not check the proof, or fully believe that the result is feasible. (Yes, I did in fact go back and read it)

> I have not checked most of the details, but I think that the claimed o(n log n) bound is plausible.

Stopped reading right after that. Why is this so high up on HN? It's literally nothing.

I'm not an expert, but in my mind if you actually want to make the human species interplanetary, flying small groups of people to the planet won't do anything for it. Send robots to build a base first, and yes that will take a long time. Otherwise you'll just be a species that visited other planets. (which would already be cool though obviously)

I'm quite excited by planetary defense missions. While I don't think that anyone has any reason to be fearful of the constant danger of being wiped out by an asteroid, in my mind it marks a big milestone for us as a species to be able to (in not so distant future) protect ourselves from something that wiped out dinosaurs. Just feels like a mission that is not driven by global power struggles/projections, but is just a positive for everyone.

It seems weird to think about how much more developed we are as a species, and yet so far we are still vulnerable to the same incident that ended their reign over this planet, completely out of their (and our) control.

Forecasting is just trying to identify recurring and long-time trends in data, and you're absolutely right that with a narrow observation window it is more difficult to do so, however if you have enough historical data (i.e. several years), these models are remarkably good at picking up on patterns leading up to e.g. bank holidays, the information is contained in the data.

That being said, more information is of course better, assuming it doesn't introduce bias, like focusing on specific events like holidays too much, when the information is already contained in the historical data, without having to make assumptions about what an upcoming holiday means.

The biggest challenge last time I worked with time series forecasting (which is ~5 years ago) was learning long-term shifts in the baseline of the data (e.g., the general use of electricity always goes up, a lot more solar panels and EVs influence the baseline, etc.).

I can only assume (hope) that there has been some substantial progress in that area though.

(Edited the formatting for a nicer reading experience)

I don't think you realize how little tax some of the richest individuals actually pay. They can dodge taxes and exploit loopholes in ways that aren't available to the "average" person. Of course the average person shouldn't try to dodge taxes, and neither should the ultra wealthy, because if they are applied in a fair way, taxes are good for the community. The problem is just that it doesn't work in a fair way in practice.

I agree this is more of a "jumping car" than anywhere near an actual "flying car". My main issue with both is that if ground based cars have an issue, for example an engine failure, in most cases you can still get the car to safely stop at the side of the road. If you're flying, that's a very different story.

Even if we would accept the premise that flying cars will be the norm at some point, I'm not sure what people imagine that would do for them. Technically you could solve traffic jams to some degree, but still not entirely because I can't imagine that at any point flying cars would mean that you just fly wherever you want. It would give us multilayered traffic, which is cool to reduce traffic jams, but does it really do anything else?

idk about the safety of involving jumping cars into car crashes, I'd still prefer the brakes (obviously not always enough time). The one useful situation I could see is if you're driving (accidentally I hope) off a cliff.

It's a tech demo marketing presentation with a jumping car in it, not a flying one. It does look pretty cool though. Let's first wait and see if/when this will even be available and not just a marketing stunt.

It's a cool demonstration, I'll give them that. From what I've seen online, people don't even seem to consider whether or not they would actually want this, just because the novelty of it. I'd even ignore that and call it good marketing, if that's what they would actually try to sell here - but you need some kind of special invitation access to even get those, while they use this demonstration to boost the pre-orders for a car without the features everyone is talking about (or at least trying to, we'll see how many will actually go for it).

To a degree I think it comes with the rational approach. If you want to be a rationalist, you need to consider many perspectives, and somehow bring in the nuance of as many of them as possible instead of ignoring the parts that don't fit your narrative. It's very easy to be brief with one-sided takes, but nuance is boring and lengthy. That of course doesn't mean that the authors conclusions and arguments will be correct in the end.