That happened to me too, turns out my desktop was software accelerated because I had screwed up the GPU config somehow. I asked Claude to fix it and it did.
I don't know, I think the downsides outweigh the benefits. I don't want to have to secure a bunch more IP-based devices that can talk to my computers. I'd rather they were separated at the radio level, like Zigbee.
Thread is also IP(v6)-based. But in this context, Thread would go a fair ways toward solving stavros's concern, as it means security could be enforced on the Border Router(s), rather than each individual device.
I used to think this, and I only took photos of places (without me in them). Then I realised that the value of the photo is to remind me of what I was doing, how I was feeling, etc, not just that I was in the place. I agree that faking smiles makes the photo worth less, but just don't fake anything.
I am not against taking selfies in the literal sense. Go ahead and take a snap of you and your surrounding. It becomes sad and depressing when someone needs to do multiple takes and even worse, touch up the image.
You can't offer a workable solution to an excuse. Nobody pushing this wants to protect the children, therefore offering a solution that will protect the children is irrelevant.
While the powers pushing this aren't doing it for protecting children, there are many people who want restricting the internet to protect children. This is why it's a good cover instead of an obvious power grab, because parents want to stop their ten year old children from seeing porn or getting addicted to social media, but they don't know much about how to do it, the technology involved or who is pushing it.
You might not want any child control, as many in HN don't, but in general the people do. And if you make parents choose between the current free for all and the government knowing the identity of every user, they will choose the second.
Sure, the government would probably not protect the children even after requiring ID, but by then it would be too late.
Yep, and the social media and other tech companies could have solved this 10 or 15 years ago on their own terms but chose to pretend that it was all just a "parenting" issue and not their responsibility. Now they are facing the heavy and clumsy hand of government regulation.
I'm a parent and will take the second option in a heartbeat.
But it's not because I'm cool with my government "[not] doing it for protecting children" or any other conspiracy theory nonsense.
It's because governments ALREADY have all this information if they want it. Most people freely log in to their favourite services, and corporations will hand over data when asked. There are vast amounts of hacked data available, which any government with a competent intelligence service has a copy of. Then there are all the existing laws and intelligence apparatus that can track people.
Age gates wont help the government find out what porn you watch, or who you message on WhatsApp, they already know if they really wanted. But they will create a social contract that letting your kids loose on social media and unfiltered internet is unacceptable. At the moment bad parents have all the power, drawing the line somewhere and enforcing it will give power back to parents that want to raise their children responsibly.
Raising a generation of kids not addicted to internet brainrot is the real way to make sure democratic governments don't overreach with the data they have.
I have an 11yo. I know a ton of parents. And I don't know a single person - not one - who thinks this is a good idea. And I've asked.
Obviously this is just an anecdote and not a substitute for data. But... is there data on sentiment? I don't think it's actual parents who are pushing for this.
I have a 10yo. I know loads of parents too. I don't think I've ever heard the "freedom" position taken apart from on HN. To non-techies it just seems self evident we should block kids from seeing beheadings and donkey porn. They haven't usually thought much about how that would be achieved and what the knock on effects would be. But they do want it.
Both groups exist. Some want to protect the children, others hop on the bandwagon to ensure that protecting the children comes alongside full mass surveillance, and we do ourselves no good by pretending the first group is the second group. Believe it or not, there are children and we are currently failing to protect them from things we need to protect them from.
Yeah, that's the Linus "hard R" (he thought "hard R" referred to "retard"), but it's just wrong. "Hard R" is "nigger", in opposition to soft r ("nigga"). I don't think there's even a question, that's how hard/soft has always been used. Anything else is just confusion, I think.
I use OpenCode with a three agent combo (architect, developer, reviewer), as I've found it's crucial that different models write the code vs review it.
That's the same question I have as well. We're a cancer that's spreading on the earth and we're worrying we aren't spreading fast enough. Yeah, I get that we want to support the aging population, but at this point we're doing it at the expense of humanity as a whole.
Instead of such generalizations which are meaningless anyway ( if you had cancer you'd get treatment to kill it, hence if you claim to be part of a cancer with the capability to kill yourself...)
Choose to be the change you wanna see in the world and find other who want to do that and stop saying "woo be us" in public as it just doesn't help.
The world is the way it is because we complain and consume too much and act & care too little. But change always starts with you and first your attitude. And then well inspire others with your actions to make this world (one of ) the best versions it can be
Not religious at all but... "To those who is given much..."
If all they do is not have kids and claim that we are a cancer the minimum they could do is that other classic
Speaking is silver but silence is gold...
And well I firmly believe the biggest problem is the pervasive desire to be weak and complain by those who have the possibility of actual impact.
The battle is lost before it's fought and all.
But yeah we are being led by people with "inferior" visions for the world ~ Plato... But calling ourselves shit ain't gonna help it's just giving yourself and easy exit.
You might not like it, but by choosing not to reproduce they ARE having an actual impact on the world (as this debate about their actions demonstrates).
Maybe we, as a species, would have better long term outcomes if we reflected more before blindly charging forward exactly as our parents did (and their parents before them).
Maybe they feel we should choose a different course and look for better/different ways of living and being as a species. There is no such thing as infinite growth, we should probably act accordingly.
If talking is impact there is an impact.
But it makes the word kind of meaningless (a common issue).
All I know from them is their words... Which I hope we can agree where kind of negative (I personally prefer not to be a cancer hbu ?)
There is no such thing "as a species"... It's not like we are ants...
Some groups of humans/individuals are net neutral, some net positive and most net negative.
The question is always about incentives and externalities... and not what we as a nation/city/... Whatever prefer but what we are willing to stop doing...
At the end of the day the world is the way it is because the people who choose the game are the ones who keep playing it.
The thing that got me with his comment is that he based on his website is relatively succesful... Unlike this fake belief that billionaires hold all the power it is in general the 0.1% that hold the power... With the consent of rhe 9.9% and he's most likely 9.9%
...
This not having kids as a noble sacrifice is just choosing to be weak tbh unless he's actually tried but if that is the case it's definitely not in public.
Using a metaphor to illustrate a point is neither negative nor positive, what matters is if it is helpful in communicating.
The often quoted: "Infinite growth is the mentality of a cancer cell" is fairly accurate for describing human growth (when there is no real concern for any externalities such as environmental preservation or resource conservation). The abstract comparison does not bother me in the slightest.
Humans are a species like any other animal/insect. Ants have workers and drones, soldiers and queens (some ants evolved to do nearly nothing as a reserve work force). Trying to defining the worth of sentient beings based on abstract value functions (positive/negative, success/failure) is a narrow and sad way of looking at the world.
I have no idea what "game" you are referring to. Are you talking about life? I think that is a sad way to look at the world. Life isn't a game and there are many ways to live a good life while helping others (kin or not).
Not having children can be a noble sacrifice if someone is doing it to prevent passing on chronic illness or to prevent suffering. Someone caring for elderly parents and choosing to delay having children indefinitely does not make them "weak" as you like to suggest. Giving up something you want for the greater good of the world around you is worth understanding, maybe even worth emulating.
You seem to be looking at life and existence through an extremely narrow lens and judging people without really knowing anything about them. Hurling insults around casually as if you have everything figured out, which you do not (nobody does).
I would suggest you take time to talk to people more about their life and experiences before judging them so harshly. Try to hold back your insults and practice empathy instead; you might learn something about life and its vast breadth of expressions.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the person I was replying to, all positive and me allmost all of them negative...
I would suggest you a mirror + ass out of you and me reminder... The human ability to know the motives about the other person is severely overestimated...
I wanted to have a friendly philosophical thought experiment / different pov with the original poster, if he had the time and desire to do so. instead you butted in and went into a full blown j'accuse style which was very unpalatable.
I wish you a nice day touching some grass and enjoying all the beautiful stuff a cancer iyho has created. Take care.
Personally, especially in the age of llm's, I wouldn't do so much projection and insinuation under a profile that is linked to your online/real identity.
While on the one hand strong opinions are generally appreciated, not too many people who consider themselves a cancer are looking for some to help them with "overall growth."...
I guess for some reason it struck a nerve and that's why you felt the need to continue (well and sunken cost phallacy obviously) but again no upside and unlimited downside.
Anyway if you're in vietnam hmu for a drink but imho do yourself a favor and stop trying to get imaginary internet points - we are all dogs (on the internet ...) for good or bad but you have a name.
You are using so many words to tell a person they should just kill themselves without directly saying it. I flagged your comment anyway. I hope the moderator understands the context.
If that is the (logical) conclusion you come to maybe the answer is that the person should be more careful about their choice of words because of the conclusion it leads to ?
Not that I expect too much deep thinking of someone who chooses to call themself trumpdong...
I am not a physicist, and actually know nothing about physics, so take these with a grain of salt:
1. Time runs slower the faster you go, stopping when you reach c. Going back in time would require you to travel faster than c, which the laws of physics generally frown upon.
2. No, I'm not sure there's an intuitive explanation here but motion doesn't slow down in high gravity, time itself does.
reply