eszed

There's a speaker? Why does my dishwasher have a speaker?

(Is it active noise-cancelation? If so, cool!)

I wouldn't disagree with that!

Mind you, I broke my video game addiction shortly after that time-period - my last console was an Xbox 360 - and haven't got a firm grasp on what's come since.

Not to burst your bubble, but the usual eye-line is the back wall of the theatre - or higher, if you're playing a auditorium with a balcony. It's to make sure everyone can see your face. I can promise that he saw you, though, and would have noticed, and been sad, if you'd left. Keeping an audience engaged is the whole deal, and if standing-room patrons stick around you know you're getting it done.

I only watched the first season of Picard (and, sadly, didn't like it much), but I got the impression that Stewart was acting feeble. I saw him on TV a few times (Graham Norton, the Oscars, maybe something else) around that time, and he looked and moved way better than he did in the show.

That's such a total misunderstanding of the US constitution that I'll assume you're not a USA-ian, and explain it in simple terms. In the USA the people are sovereign; they delegate their power to Congress, who are first-among-equals within the three branches of government; the executive branch's role is to "faithfully execute" the laws that Congress passes. So, yeah: a president "behaving like a CEO" and deciding on his own how to allocate money is patently and obviously un-Constitutional.

Now, the US legislature has, in recent decades, delegated so many of its prerogatives, and overlooked so much executive overreach, that your misappropriation is completely understandable. In fact, though, the current situation is exactly what the framers of the US Constitution most feared. (You can read their discussions at the time collected in a volume called "The Federalist Papers".) Their inability to devise a system to meet a threat they fully anticipated argues against their much-heralded "genius".

Total side-note: CEO as sovereign within "their" company is, arguably, also a perverse interpretation of the US corporate governance model. Feel free to argue that point without me, HN - I know that's just how that works nowadays - but it's totally wrong to import that model into government, where it's explicitly not intended.

I like my Bosch dishwasher, too. Never connected it to wifi; never downloaded the app. It broadcasts a Bluetooth channel I wish I could turn off, but I've not seen any other ill effect. There's just no compelling use-case for a "connected" dishwasher, lol.

I'm not arguing with your basic point - in fact, "but some people are better at expressing their intent in code than in prose" instantly occurred to me, as well - but why should "it's always possible to leave holes and stubs to be filled in later" not also apply to natural language?

I, at least, have always written in that way - essays, teaching materials, letters, long-form narratives, (and now, recently) specs for the AI-gods, doesn't matter - I get the bits I'm sure of down first, and then tinker (cut-and-paste, do more research, add or remove material, write bridging sections) until I'm able to connect them together.

The most frustrating English teacher I had in high school required us to turn in an outline a week before the essay was due. I did it for the first assignment, and was marked a B, with a comment along the lines of "this was very good, but it deviated from your outline". Which, well, of course it did, because I bloody learned something while I was writing it! The next time, I wrote the whole essay ahead of the "outline" due date, which led me to discover WordPerfect 5.1's "Generate Outline" function, which led her to the mistaken impression that she'd taught me something besides disrespect for authority.

That's not quite a digression by way of personal anecdote, because I wonder if you were taught writing by someone like her? Prose doesn't have to be composed (in both senses of the word) like that. In process, it can be just as shaggy and stubbed and non-linerally referential as code. Furthermore, AIs (I am finding), work quite well with a process like that: I'm constantly telling it to "put X into Deferred", when I haven't yet got something worked out in my head.

Agree. For the drama of it, I'd move the end-date up to 1969, just to catch the moon landing.

My great-grandfather learned to care for horses, and drive a wagon / buggy, and keenly remembered the first time he saw an automobile. He qualified as a doctor before antibiotics were invented, and then lived long enough to at least exist in a house with a personal computer - whether he ever used it is something I never thought to ask my grandfather!

If you go back further, 80-100 years ago every American city / town had functional public transit systems. The wide median strips on a couple of boulevards in my mother's hometown recall the street-car lines that she rembered seeing torn out in the 1950s. When she and my dad moved back there about ~15 years ago, after they'd retired, they voted against the in-fill development and public transit initiatives proposed by an urbanist mayor, because "[town's] too small for that".

Does selecting inputs work? That's all I need from a TV. If anything, needing to sign in to use the native interface would be a bonus, because it'd prevent non-technical family members from accidently using it. "Babe, we have Netflix on [the dongle], why'd you sign in on the TV?" is a conversation I've had more than once.

Free install by ADB, and Developer-moding once per device, not once per app / install? Yeah, OK. I don't quite get the outrage, then.

Before you @ me, HN, I run GrapheneOS. I fully understand and practice "own your own hardware". Most people probably shouldn't, though, because they lack the technical ability / interest to do so safely, and throwing them to the wolves strikes me as ideology pushed to the point of foolishness.

Now, y'all can flame my ass.

This is not unique to humans. Animal behavior also emerges from the complexity of their interactions. Look at the "[duck] raised as a [chicken]" genre of videos, for instance.

To return towards the subject of the thread, "AI behavior emerges from the complexity of their training", is the whole point.

Some banks can schedule transfers, but not payments. Or, not payments by specific routes. My credit union will cut a paper check and mail it to your bank (yes, that's seriously what they actually do), but can't schedule Zelle, or (maybe they can do it now, but they couldn't a few years ago) an electronic transfer.

Like someone else up-thread, my experience moving back to the US from Europe, ~15 years ago, was like stepping back to the financial dark ages. It's a bit better now (Zelle, Plaid, Mint / Monarch - though I'm well-aware of the privacy downsides of those third-party platforms), but the industry isn't close to catching up with the fifteen-year-old state of the art, let alone, say, Indian or Brazilian micro-transaction networks.

> Companies expect you to learn the ropes elsewhere and only show up when you're experienced.

This is every industry - barring unionized trades with established apprenticeship pathways - over the past few decades. Either someone does the early-career job-hop dance, or they take on student loans to (maybe!) skip some of that. (And, you know, universities would prefer not actually to train anyone, either. If they can - "highly selectively" - find cohorts who don't need much mentorship then that's much better for their bottom lines.) Regardless, the entire cost and risk of training has been pushed onto individual employees.

Yes, this works well for a small minority of highly-motivated people - who are, of course, vastly over-represented on this board, so few here will object to it - but it prevents far, far more people from ever reaching their potential.