The top comment on this very thread at the time I write this is clear bad-faith disinformation. Life is a Cabaret, but the Cabaret is not life. The tone here has changed for the worse, especially since the election, and I cannot keep pretending.
Do you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42385079? I have zero idea what the technicalities of the bankruptcy judgment are or should be, but what I do know after an embarrassing number of years doing this job is:
(1) there's no such thing as "clear bad-faith" - to decide that would require knowing someone else's inner state. We don't have access to that about each other, and people are far too quick to draw conclusions about it—thousands of times too quick;
(2) usually the person who seems to be in bad faith just has a different working set of information and a very different background than you; they may be wrong of course, but that's not a crime or sin. We're all wrong anyhow.
(3) the only response to "disinformation" that works (or has a hope of working) is to answer false claims with true ones and bad arguments with better arguments.
I can also tell you that HN hasn't much changed since the election. Or if it has, I haven't noticed, or seen data suggesting it. People have often felt over the years like HN has changed since $X, but at most there are fluctuations that revert to the mean. Whatever real trends there are, they're longer-term than that, and determined by fundamentals.
> people have often felt over the years like HN has changed since $X, but at most there are fluctuations that revert to the mean. Whatever the real trends there are, they're longer-term than that, and determined by fundamentals.
I think it is generally agreed upon that the volume of shared misinformation and individuals believing misinformation has been dramatically increasing over the last decade as preferences in media has shifted.
It would be interesting if the population of HN wasn't following this trend.
I have vivid nighttime hallucinations. Sometimes it is bugs or spiders (so many spiders), other times dancing teacups emptying themselves onto my face. I remember a time when my alarm clock was a lion that I had to tame. But a few times it was very much what you describe. In one case, a ghostly looking woman looked me directly in the face from not more than an inch away.
Our minds get kind of funny when we are asleep. They manifest strange and incomprehensible imagery. I wouldn’t make too much of it.
(By the way, I have these much more frequently when I am stressed. Perhaps that was a factor for you?)
My concerns tend to be the cost in terms of land and intermittency that are harder to evaluate. Nevertheless, I believe we should not let the perfect (nuclear) be the enemy of the good (renewables), so your comments are welcome. We should neither fuss over the aesthetics of a solution nor obsess over the exact time at which it is strictly preferable to status quo on a very specific metric.
I knew someone who worked at the child care center. Things got really bad after the pandemic. I heard that people were promoted for very sketchy reasons. The result was a bureaucracy-heavy mess of incompetence and political infighting. It apparently was unbearable, and it is not a surprise to me that this happened. All the corner-cutting and nickel-and-diming made it clear that the higher-ups were trying to kill this perk. It is kind of sad, since this single perk was specifically called out when Google used to get the ‘Best Place to Work’ awards.
> If you ask specifically about the discrepancy it will usually deny the discrepancy entirely or double-down on the mistake.
I have had the exact opposite experience. I pasted error messages from code it generated, I corrected its Latin grammar, and I pointed out contradictions in its factual statements in a variety of ways. Every time, it responded with a correction and (the same) apology.
This makes me wonder if we got different paths in an AB test.
I pasted error messages from code it generated. It kept generating the same compiler error eventually.
When I applied the "socratic method" and explained to it the answer based on stack overflow answers. It would at first pretend to understand by transforming the relevant documentation I inserted into it, but once I asked it the original question, it basically ignored all the progress and kept creating the same code with the same compiler errors.
I had a conversation with it in Latin yesterday. I also just spent way more time than I care to admit on inquiries about late-18th/early-19th century governments. It seems better at providing high-level information than specifics. I consistently find errors in anything to do with dates or calculations, but it is accurate enough to be very useful to me. Much better than the vast majority of my elementary school teachers, at least.
I have learned the hard way that when dealing with government software (at least in the US), you must assume the least favorable/most unfavorable interpretation of any information given.
When I saw the email informing the author of the over-purchase, I knew there was no way out. Purchasing the difference, as the author did, would only cause more trouble. The questions now are how much will be refunded, whether any purchases will go through, and whether there will be a fine or legal action. Refer to the rule above for my guesses.
I think many people do not appreciate how devastating this is to public trust.
