Politics is indeed toxic to pure curiosity about pure things. I feel that too, viscerally.
However. Culture war tropes get posted in even the most abstract discussion, so banning top-level posts won't keep it out.
Furthermore, technology is inherently political to the degree that it is transformative. The Facebook algorithm was always political, it just took time for that to become apparent. I'm trying to illustrate another kind of toxicity, that of engineering archetypes refusing to consider the political impact of their engineering decisions. Technologists in transformative fields should not be putting their heads in the sand. I don't want HN to devolve to red/green political rage, but there are political discussions that belong here.
Lastly, social sciences may well be dismal, but they can still illuminate, and politics is a valid subject of study. This site is predicated on curiosity, and areas of politics are on topic for that. Humanity is a system that bears analysis and can even be engineered.
He is a leader and a political figure. This blogpost is political (as well as sharing a family photo, which is itself imbued with a political message in that context).
Engineer archetypes hate politics and refuse to think about it. For most engineering, there is negligible political dimension. But culturally-transformative technology is inherently political to the degree it's transformative. Altman recognises this.
He is working towards a social goal, and attracting support to achieve it. Yes, he is a political leader.
I've often got value from digging through libraries (in other languages), but I've almost always had the feeling that I'm not "doing it right", or that someone somewhere isn't "doing it right". Logically, the concept of encapsulation doesn't extend to meta-coding, but it feels like it should, by symmetry. It feels like I'm breaking encapsulation if I use the knowledge I gain from poking around when I code to the library.
I'm fumbling at the concept of a library surface not being self-describing but I suspect I lack some concepts; does this thought lead anywhere? Can anyone give me a clue?
I suppose if you examine the behaviour of a library, and code against that, then it is possible that the behaviour is unintentional and thus you end up being locked into a bug. This is most clear when the library is supposed to follow a standard (e.g., parsing some format), but is bugged and didn't do it right - and you code against that buggy behaviour.
However, that's an extreme case imho - you do that when you can't fix that library's bug or wrong behaviour.
But for things like key names and such, i dont think this applies - those key names are part of the library's api - and i often find that clojure libraries don't document them (or do but it's one of those auto-generated docs that dont mean anything).
Humans are sapient; industrialists and politicians have intent. But the incentive structure is an evolved system, and that's what selects these people. The result is that humanity, collectively, is amoebic. We are probably doomed to expand until we have a population crash or until another species arises to keep us in check.
I had the hydraulic pump belt break when I was about 30 or 40 miles from home, and of course I had a water pump belt and an alternator belt, but not the hydraulic pump belt.
The brake and regulator accumulators were both nice and new though so the "low brake pressure stop immediately" warning only came on about two or three miles from home (once there's no pressure at all, there's no brakes at all, but this is pretty difficult to achieve in practice) and I just had to cope with the twitchy steering through the difficult part - driving through town at 15-20mph in rush hour traffic anyway.
All analysis should also keep in mind the "who", no matter how logically separable it is.
I put this less strongly since boeing contracted MBA cancer and yolo'd the 737-max, but that aside, the civil aviation engineering field controls risks to a fault. Commercial pilots are selected to follow checklists without deviation. I allow them the grace to implement steer-by-wire.
Ford kept selling Pintos with exploding fuel tanks, Toyota sold priuses with runaway acceleration defects, and depending on region maybe the worst twenty per cent of drivers ought to be operating nothing more dangerous than shirt buttons. No matter how good the plan is, those people shouldn't be anywhere near it.
Musk has a very spiky character sheet. He is, in some dimensions, extraordinarily stupid, and I believe his ego makes a lot of big decisions. But something that might fall into the genius category is this: building things speculatively, primarily for the capabilities that you anticipate developing along the way, the nature of which are not yet known. But this increases your odds of having capabilities in the future that others lack, which looks a lot like a venture capital oeuvre.
To condense that, i might use a phrase like "blind-buying future option space"
Whether Musk deserves that credit is a moot point. I haven't trusted a thing he's said for years, and studying him for revealed intent can't get past "clown on drugs" without violating occam's razor.
My understanding is superficial, so do knock it down, not it seems to me that tesla insists on vision-only hour self driving, which vastly increases the requirement for ML. Whereas Waymo has a lower sum technology requirement by using both lidar and vision, and have moved faster. So when you say "tesla needs the AI5 chip", i hear the rider "...to avoid a public volte face".
I suppose that bulky lidar modules are undesirable in premium consumer goods, but i don't see that downside for taxis.
Heuristically, that sounds naive. Actuaries do not typically think "oh, that's enough data". If Experian could track whether you iron your shirts, it too would show up in your credit score.
I mean possibly. I interact in the space and there is almost no information in a cancelled subscription. There is more information in how much you spent on takeaway.
reply