It's federation that is the problem. Federation leads to fragmentation, which ultimately is a headwind to adoption. IMHO you need a single network that allows people to choose the "channels" that you can view/join and then people that join that channel start hosting and replicating the content. Also, great filtering controls are critical to the success of such a platform.
Not sure if there is really anything attempting to implement essentially Twitter with this model or not? I would be interested though if someone has run across or is working on a system like that.
IMHO for mostly text data where you need a bit of custom formatting(e.g. cooking recipes) I would probably choose to go with AsciiDoc and then just adapt a rendering engine to make it look pretty. This way you get all the tooling and learnings that AsciiDoc has accumulated over the years and avoid having to spend time on a DSL and edge case detection that inventing a new standard will require.
Also the people writing recipes (my parents for example) are _most definitely_ not going to learn a DSL, they just want a text box where they can type whatever they want. If you care about having structured data, other humans with more structured proclivities need to do that for you.
After reading another comment here about a recipe being an “upside down tree” I now understand what at least this format is trying to accomplish.
It has some really nice properties, but trades off a key feature of the gantt format: your hands can only be doing one thing at a time. With the gantt format it’s very clear what you are supposed to be doing at any time and it preserves the order of operations. It doesn’t express how things are combined, however, which the tree format accomplishes.
My motivation for the gantt format was to prevent getting “meanwhiled” by a recipe. You are chugging along, and think you are in good shape, and come across that dastardly word in a recipe: Meanwhile. Turns out you should have beaten the eggs to a stiff whip 15 minutes ago.
> but trades off a key feature of the gantt format: your hands can only be doing one thing at a time. With the gantt format it’s very clear what you are supposed to be doing at any time and it preserves the order of operations.
In the cookingforengineers.com (COE) format, the order is to do each step in the first column and then move right to the next column and do those steps, etc.
Hmm interesting. But I have to confess I have no idea, intuitively, how to read that format. I’m sure it works once you understand it, but if you need an instruction manual for the format then maybe you’ve lost the plot a bit.
Exactly. All of this screen time is bad for kids and the phone is the devil reincarnate is ludicrous. The type of content they are consuming is what parents should monitor. Allow kids to use the device appropriately. If they do something with the device that you deem as inappropriate, then talk to them and correct the behavior. It is through mistakes that kids (and adults) really learn. Sheltering and avoidance will do nothing to prepare them for the real world once they reach early adulthood.
And everything I've ever delved deep into how the studies were conducted, what were the real conclusions drawn, the type of content being shown, etc. never leads to what the news would have you conclude. It's basically a terrible game of telephone where parents just end up getting fear mongered into limiting device time to 2 hours a day because someone said so. Utter nonsense.
There's a lot of people making claims based on paid research with agendas to sell fear. If you think you have some real empirical evidence that will standup to scrutiny, by all means share.
It seems like it would be less polarizing if it was the default state for news and information outlets to not endorse any candidate ever and just remain as neutral as possible.
Why would they want to appear neutral? All news reporting, no matter what, is inherently biased in some way. There isn’t some “ideal” where that isn’t the case. There can’t be some magical font of unbiased information because just selecting what stories to put on the front page introduces bias.
News can’t be unbiased and being unbiased was never a goal. News is meant to inform, which includes facts as well as analysis. That seemingly the average American doesn’t understand that is a failure of the education system.
> Why would they want to appear neutral? All news reporting, no matter what, is inherently biased in some way. There isn’t some “ideal” where that isn’t the case. There can’t be some magical font of unbiased information because just selecting what stories to put on the front page introduces bias.
Sure, but just because you can't be perfectly unbiased doesn't mean the only alternative is to become a mouthpiece for a political party.
That just isn't true. It is possible to be unbiased in journalism, and it was a major goal of journalists at various times in history. Obviously not all journalists at all times have striven towards this goal, but some have. Stop making excuses for blatant partisanship, instead hold them to a higher standard.
By no means. Word choice on its own __is__ a bias. Even if you reported straight facts, the word choice used presents a bias or not. Is it a military action or a terrorist attack? Is it a protest? An occupation? Are they Freedom Fighters?
Choosing __to__ or __not to__ use an organization's given name or a description of them, is having a bias.
Choosing to report on something at all is a presentation of bias.
There is bias in everything and to imagine there isn't is to be even more susceptible to it.
That pretentious “above the fray” belief some news orgs and reporters have is awful and harmful.
NYT is particularly guilty of that behavior.
How one contextualizes a story and presents the attention grabbing headline puts a massive thumb on the scale of how the topic is perceived.
Because of what the article mentions or doesn’t mention, provides context for or no context for, the exact same core story centerpiece is biased and leading. Any impression the author wants to convey is easy to bring out in the “neutral” writing. This is simply a fact of writing.
And yet some reporters and news orgs, like the NYT, profess they are neutral observers as if from the planet zorg recording a miraculous unbiased story.
No, that is impossible and everyone knows it. Claiming to be neutral is gas lighting.
> Why would they want to appear neutral? [...] There isn’t some “ideal”
Getting some notion of what USA politics are like on HN, I can understand why you'd have this viewpoint, but I don't think it's true
The news I am used to, I couldn't tell you what political color it has. The selection they make seems based on the perceived severity, which certainly means there is a selection process that must be introducing some sort of bias, but as near as I can tell, this bias is towards a shared humanity and not a party
Perhaps I am just naïve, so I opened the local Wikipedia and it has no mention of them being accused of having a bias, political coloring or selection, notable omissions, or any such thing
I disagree strongly with the party for hate and egocentricity having come out as the biggest one in the most recent election, and to a lesser extent with the rich people be rich party from the previous ~decade, so it's not like all noses are pointed in the same direction where I'm from; but I couldn't tell you how this organization (the default thing if you turn on your TV at prime time) feels about any particular party beyond that I expect they would condemn hate and violence in general -- shared humanity, basically.
You’re suggesting there’s no difference between journalism that attempts objectivity and outright political advocacy which is clearly false. Perfect neutrality doesn’t exist, we can even get into a discussion of what knowledge is, that doesn’t mean news outlets don’t have an obligation to try. They did in decades past which is evident from a review of older journalism.
maybe biased opinions should be entirely separate from journalistic enterprises if those journalists want a single shred of credibility. people are mad at trump supporters and anti covid and anti vax stuff, and while i agree that's all stupid, i don't blame them at all for falling for it because main stream corporate journalism has destroyed any and all trust with absolutely everyone. maybe if we weren't constantly being lied to and sold something, more people would believe them when they say important things like "trump is taking away reproductive rights" and "covid exists and people are dying"
That's a fair point. But in this case it wasn't a principled stand against the idea of opinion journalism[1]. It was an act to kill an in-progress editorial piece days before publication, for quite clearly partisan reasons (though most people believe Bezos did it out of fear and not affinity, he'd presumably prefer Trump loses, but doesn't want to be in the line of fire if he doesn't).
[1] Which, let's be honest, is pervasive and popular. You aren't simultaneously arguing to kick Hannity off the air, right?
Pretending there exists “unbiased” journalism is silly. All journalism is biased to some degree. The worthwhile categorization is to what degree the bias exists.
Journalistic credibility comes from presenting facts. Which facts you present, which pieces you publish are in themselves opinions, biases.
That's why I see aiming for unbiased reporting to miss the point of journalism. We want opinions, but not random uneducated opinions, we want well argumented, relevant and proof backed opinions.
"Candidate X is a liar" is valid journalism if there's the facts to back the claim and the analysis to make it a thought provoking piece that brought something to the readers. We have whole Pullitzer winning books going into minute details about how some public figures are crooks.
To note, not reporting, not expressing opinions is also a bias so I don't see a middle ground. For instance if a major national journalism would not publish the news of a candidate getting arrested, that in itself is a biased decision. If they'd publish a dry piece just quoting the official police declaration, that would also be tremendous bias and everyone would see it as a refusal to comment on it.
News outlets by definition can not be neutral. Just look at the insane amount of stuff that the global news agencies like Reuters or AFP push out every minute, and on top of that comes all the state, county and local news.
The very act of filtering what to report to the audience is political in itself. Say, floods or other natural disasters caused or (like wildfires) made worse by climate change. Most of them tend to be ignored outside of the nation they happen, but not reporting on it also means that people don't grasp just how bad climate change already is, and thus the people may not vote for parties or individuals campaigning on climate change.
You learn this by science, and scientific reporting. Not by reporting events usually selected by severity of harm to humans and clickbait factor to enrich the media companies.
I feel like you missed the point, which is that reporting or not reporting, or how you report something can all be examples of bias. The conclusions you draw. The quotes you use or don’t use. The ordering in which you report things.
The job of the journalist is to try to present a version of the story which is as close to the truth as possible, and without leaving out any relevant information. But, also the story is in context of the values which most of us hold dear, because we are human beings.
We might have thought that an unbiased news story would have to be written by a robot, but as we know now, LLMs are biased too.
I would read "neutral" here to mean "factual" rather than endorsing trump as part of being neutral or something. If one party proposes e.g. impossible things or financially stupid things or whatever it may be (general examples from politics anywhere), that can and should be reported on and would not break neutrality
But it is not. They regularly make endorsements and call outs. They recently called for Biden to step down from the ticket, just months ago. It seems like we should not examine situations based on idealistic, non-existent scenarios but the world we actually live in.
The Washington Post has endorsed a candidate every election cycle since 1976, with the exception of 1988. The New York Times has endorsed a candidate in every presidential election since its founding in 1851.
Nothing, I suppose. I honestly didn't realize it's so contentious. I guess it just seemed kind of weird for "the news" to have an opinion at all. Why do people want an organization to tell them who they think should be president?
I do remember the 1990s where it was typically local newspapers doing explicit endorsements and it was almost always limited to local candidates and issues.
100%. People upset about this are just upset cause they didn't endorse their candidate. Trust in media/journalism is at an all time low. This is simply a smart move to not alienate 50% of the population. If individual editors/writers/journalists want to endorse someone, take it to your blog or website or twitter.
It's pretty obvious isn't it? They don't want anyone to understand how the system really works. They should not be allowed to put the words "Unlimited" anywhere in their advertisement. period. It's all deceptive advertising and they should be raked over the coals for it.
If it's shared then say "Shared gigabit internet for only X dollars!" I guess the reason they don't do that is because a lot of people would choose competitor services if they were honest. Cable companies are soul sucking monopolies/duopolies and deserve no quarter.
That reminds me of the way JCPenney had a thing where they would do no promotional pricing in a bid to be honest with the consumer about the actual price of their products... and it backfired massively. People assumed that because they didn't have any sales that they weren't the cheapest prices.
In the end, people go for what they perceive to be the cheapest prices, not necessarily the prices that actually are the cheapest.
There's a difference between a data center connection and a home connection. For 99% of home users, moderately oversubscribed gigabit is perfectly fine, and no one would pay the premium (and it's a big premium) for more. Once 1 GB downloads are slow or the connection can't handle 5 HD streams, it's getting into false advertising territory.
> If it's shared then say "Shared gigabit internet for only X dollars!" I guess the reason they don't do that is because a lot of people would choose competitor services if they were honest.
I don't think any competitor will give you a dedicated gigabit to you for a reasonable price, especially if everyone suddently starts asking for one.
I pay for a Symmetrical gigabit connection, it’s 60 dollars a month. I record speed tests multiple times a day every day and have ever since I got the service last year. They’re growing gang busters too, my entire neighborhood is on Ziply (90% of household converted from what I understand)
Aside from them adjusting some things due to the rapid unexpected uptake, I have gotten full connection speeds for upload and download every day for over a year. Its been uptime of 99.999% (the adjustment period happened over 2 days and they only slowed service to 300/300 temporarily)
It can be done. It won’t be done by Comcast et. al.
I'm also in Oregon, specifically Portland. DMARCs for fiber are largely shared by providers which is why you can have multiple providers in a given area. That way they don't take up extra pole space and the city can pay a single provider to maintain sections of line.
As long as the DMARC isn't saturated then you're only limited by the other lines also going to the DMARC and the collective activity of subscribers upstream of you between you and the central office. That's to say, you are right that it can be done but only insofar as other posters have indicated: last mile providers need to provision higher capacity lines between the DMARC and the central office.
This doesn't prove anything, it just means that when you're doing a speedtest there aren't other users that are also saturating the connection.
Note that this doesn't means that there are exactly 0 users downloading in those moments. Usually there are multiple gigabits dedicated to a group of users, so that multiple users can navigate at 1Gbps without slowing down others, but not all the group at once. How much bandwidth is allocated to how many users can vary though, and some providers might allocate less total bandwidth to more users.
In practice this works out fine most of the time and most users won't notice slowdowns like you do, but if everyone started a speedtest at the same time you will notice it.
Most people should have at least two choices. Their cable company and their phone company. These choices may be comparable in price and service level or wildly divergent depending on your specific location however.
I live in San Francisco, and Comcast's DOCSIS 3.1 offering (~1Gbps down / 25Gbps up) is my only useful option. AT&T offers DSL, and MonkeyBrains will give me a microwave link (more or less symmetric, but probably would top out at around 100Mbps), but that's it, aside from the LTE/5G providers.
I live one block away from one of the main fiber trunks in the city, but I was quoted (both by Comcast and AT&T) that it would be $20k-$30k to run that fiber to my building.
Unfortunately I think my experience is pretty common in the US, though sure, there are plenty of people who can choose between e.g. cable and fiber.
IPCC originally, filtered through ChatGPT-4o. The ChatGPT-o1 model is getting pretty good, I gave it this prompt and I didn't see any glaring errors in the output:
> "We want to calculate the total amount of energy required to extract 90,000 tons of natural gas from a gas field in North Dakota, move that gas by pipeline to a port on the Southeastern United States, liquify that natural gas to the LNG state, then ship that LNG by tanker ship with 90,000 ton capacity to its destination in a Polish port in Europe, then re-gasify that product so its end users can consume it. There are thus five stages in this process."
The estimate is that shipping & processing costs are about 17% of the total energy transported, which still gives LNG quite an advantage over coal in terms of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hout generated, although wind/solar/storage is obviously much better on that metric, and LNG's upfront infrastructure costs are quite high.
Here are the key points outlining why thewanderer1983's response misinterprets noch's comment and contains inaccuracies:
Misinterpretation of the Original Point:
Intelligence vs. Moral Superiority: Noch discusses the intelligence level of a mediocre graduate science student compared to the general population. Thewanderer1983 misreads this as a claim of moral or inherent superiority over "the rest of humanity," which was not implied.
Conflation of Educational Levels:
University Graduates vs. Graduate Students: The response conflates undergraduate university graduates with graduate science students. Noch specifically refers to graduate students who have pursued advanced degrees, which typically require higher levels of specialization and intellectual rigor.
Incorrect Assessment of Intelligence Measures:
Graduate Studies as a Measure of Intelligence: Successfully completing graduate studies, especially in science, often requires significant intellectual capability. Dismissing this as "not a good measure of intelligence" overlooks the challenges inherent in advanced academic work.
Irrelevant Focus on Credentials and Industry Practices:
Credentials vs. Intelligence Discussion: Noch's comment centers on intelligence levels, not merely on holding credentials. Bringing up how industry values experience over degrees shifts the focus away from the original discussion about intelligence.
Unfounded Assumptions About Noch's Background:
Ad Hominem Attack: Suggesting that Noch hasn't been to university is an unfounded personal assumption that does not contribute to the argument and detracts from a respectful discourse.
Introduction of the 'Elite Class' Notion:
Straw Man Argument: Thewanderer1983 introduces the concept of an "elite class," which Noch did not mention. This misrepresents the original comment and argues against a point that wasn't made.
Overgeneralizations About Academia and Industry:
Academia's Recognition of Intelligence: Claiming that academics don't consider intelligence until one has a Ph.D. and years of work is an overgeneralization. Intelligence is recognized and valued at various academic levels.
Industry's View on Graduates: Stating that industry only uses graduates as an entry requirement ignores the significant roles that advanced degree holders often play in innovation and leadership within industries.
Ignoring the Core Benefit Highlighted:
AI as a Life Upgrade: Noch emphasizes how access to AI with the intelligence level of a graduate student is a substantial benefit for most people. Thewanderer1983 fails to address this key point, instead focusing on unrelated issues.
Misunderstanding of the Value of Graduate Education:
Work Ethic vs. Intellectual Achievement: While a good work ethic is important, graduate education in science also demands high intellectual capability, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.
Logical Fallacies:
Red Herring: The discussion about industry preferences and academic credentials diverts from the main argument about the intelligence level of graduate students.
Ad Hominem: Attacking Noch's presumed lack of university experience instead of addressing the argument presented.
An excellent example of an LLM (or an imitated LLM output) that fiercely defends the status quo, is overly verbose, does not come to the point, makes incorrect assumptions and lectures from a high horse.
LLMs are good for mediocre poems and presidential speeches that have no shame.
Let’s evaluate the correctness of Thewanderer’s argument in detail:
Distinction Between Credentials and Intelligence:
Correctness: Thewanderer is correct in stating that a university degree is not a definitive measure of intelligence. Intelligence is a complex trait that encompasses various cognitive abilities, problem-solving skills, creativity, and emotional intelligence. Academic credentials primarily reflect one’s ability to succeed in a structured educational environment, which is just one aspect of intelligence.
Value of Real-World Experience:
Correctness: The argument that real-world experience is crucial is accurate. Many industries value practical experience and skills over formal education. For example, in technology and business sectors, hands-on experience, problem-solving abilities, and adaptability are often more important than academic qualifications alone. This is supported by numerous studies and industry practices that prioritize experience and performance over degrees.
Critique of Credentialism:
Correctness: Thewanderer’s critique of credentialism is valid. Over-reliance on academic credentials can overlook the diverse talents and skills that individuals without formal degrees may possess. This perspective is supported by the growing recognition of alternative education paths, such as vocational training, apprenticeships, and self-directed learning, which can also lead to successful careers.
Inclusivity and Egalitarianism:
Correctness: Promoting inclusivity and valuing diverse forms of knowledge is a correct and progressive stance. Intelligence and capability are not confined to those with advanced degrees. Many successful individuals in various fields do not have formal academic credentials but have achieved significant accomplishments through experience, self-learning, and practical skills.
Encouragement of Self-Worth:
Correctness: Encouraging individuals to value their own experiences and knowledge is a positive and correct approach. It fosters confidence and self-worth, which are important for personal and professional growth. Recognizing the value of diverse experiences and perspectives contributes to a more inclusive and equitable society.
In summary, Thewanderer’s argument is correct in several key aspects:
It accurately distinguishes between academic credentials and broader measures of intelligence.
It correctly emphasizes the importance of real-world experience.
It validly critiques the overemphasis on academic credentials.
It promotes an inclusive and egalitarian view of intelligence.
It encourages self-worth and confidence in one’s abilities.
These points collectively support a well-rounded and accurate perspective on intelligence and capability.
Please could you share your prompt or a link to the conversation?
I'm genuinely puzzled that you're more interested in doubling down and justifying yourself and making new points (different from what I initially presented) than understanding the other person's point of view.
If you share your prompt, I'll have a better understanding of your motivations and whether you are arguing in good faith.
As far as silly games go: if you honestly believe a game is silly, you shouldn't play it, unless you want to win silly prizes.
