Alarmist title and poor article. I don’t agree that prompting an LLM to write targeted emails for your lobbying campaign counts as “weaponizing” AI —this is just common practice e.g. in sales and marketing.
Sure seems like a weapon to me to be able to buy more and more and more speech to be able to drown out your opposition.
If I disagree with you I can just pay to generate so much speech of mine that it will seem like nobody believes anything else. If that ability were used against you, I cannot imagine you not thinking that your opponent was wielding a powerful weapon against you
> The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality... all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.
I seem to recall there was an article posted here recently which noted that galaxies have a preferred direction of rotation. Seems like the universe itself rotating could be a reason why?
That article is by a crank. People pointed out that he cherry-picked the galaxies, and no one else who looked at the data objectively saw any evidence of preference for a rotation direction.
I looked around (Smithsonian, space.com, astronomy.com, etc.), but nowhere has any mention of people disputing the findings, do you have a link? Who is "people" in this case?
(I was/am skeptical just because it's a single-author study with pretty spectacular results, and have been keeping an eye out for any followups, but must have missed them)
It's unfortunately rare for this kind of straightforward falsification to make it into publications aimed at the general reader. "A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on," as they say.
I was hoping for something a bit more authoritative than a reddit comment being copy/pasted to HN (e.g. an actual retraction, or a paper directly disputing the findings), but I'm guessing most of the community just ignored the paper due to the history of the author.
That comment has exactly what you're asking for: Links to papers that show there is no evidence for rotation asymmetry. The very first article linked in that Reddit comment is a scientific publication from the Royal Society with the title "No evidence for anisotropy in galaxy spin directions".
I was hoping to read something that addressed this specific paper. All of those links are papers published before Lior Shamir's paper was published.
The comment I originally replied to said "people pointed out he cherry-picked results". I thought "people" might be "scientists" and they might have pointed it out in a subsequent paper or something.
> And if we want to apply tariffs, do it slowly. Instead of saying that products will be tariffed at 100% tomorrow, say they’ll be 25% next year, 50% after that, 75% after that, and 100% in year four. And then make it a law instead of a presidential decree
This is the big difference between a tariff regime that is credible in such a way that the business community can plan investment around it, and the current one that has mostly just caused chaos and confusion.
Doping potential aside, this sounds like a very promising area of research. The article mentions increased endurance, peak performance, and anti-aging potential. What are the downsides to having more mitochondria in our cells and why did we evolve to have the levels we currently have?
He has addressed this numerous times. His statement was that he was Citi Bank's best trader in 2011, which is true. The dispute is an attempt to discredit him by suggesting that him not being the best trader in other years debunks his 2011 figure.
> His statement was that he was Citi Bank's best trader in 2011, which is true
Is it? Nothing in the FT articles indicates that, and they clearly state that 2 years prior a trader got a $100 million personal bonus (so on profits much higher than that). There can be good and bad years, but I seriously doubt $35 million would be the best worldwide, and all of his colleagues who agreed to speak seem to agree with that.
> I was the best f*king trader in the f*king world and I am the bloke that called it right every f*king year
He possibly had the highest p&l on his desk ($35mil) in 2011 - was not top in 2011 in the bank, and certainly not in the world. $35mil - rookie numbers in this game, and in a seat at Citibank, middling at best.
I listened to him being asked a question on UK / US trade and his answer was very generic - something something Amazon.
To be a forex trader, you would live and breathe detail on stuff like this. To be in the top 1% of forex traders you would be far beyond that.
yes he isn't in that position now, but I expected some novel insight that you could only get from a specialist, not something that anyone could come up with.
This isn't the only example.
I don't disagree with most of what he is saying, and I'm very happy for him that he has managed to break through in a small way to get his message out.
I don't really think that matters at all, it's just an old tenuous bragging point, he's just a guy with a tough looking face and maybe has an elementary understanding of economics that relies less on being accurate and more on the viewer agreeing with him about why everything feels broken. (not that everything isn't broken, or that those reasons aren't ever accurate, but it's just a classic grifter move to pull on the thread of truth till it unravels, like asmongold)
Crashcourse economics likely provides much more value to anyone really looking to learn.
My kid is about the same age. We recently bought a safety lock to prevent him from getting into cupboard under our sink. It had great reviews on Amazon.
The first time he went into the kitchen after I had installed it, he notices it immediately, walks straight up to it, grasps it with both hands like an adult would, and has it unlatched within 5 seconds. He then proceeds to look at me like "Is this some sort of test?"
> RCMP said they don't believe the two Nova Scotia incidents are national security threats.
Are they joking? Seriously, with everything that is going on the world right now, the authorities in this country need to get their heads out of the sand and realize that we are not isolated from geopolitics.
Predictably, I see a lot of concern being expressed here about how this will be implemented and enforced. There is an underlying assumption, which seems fairly reasonable, that the government is going to use this opportunity (à la Louisiana) to overreach and require people to provide their identity to access these services.
One question I have for other HN commenters though, does it necessarily need to happen this way? Political realities aside, is there a way for the government to set up an age verification service in a way that preserves privacy?
If so, the time is ripe for this community to put forward such a solution and advocate for it loudly. If current sentiment is any indication, social media age restrictions are going to go global and Australia is going to set the precedent for the rest of the world.
It is not possible aside from getting everyone an internet ID, which most will probably reject for good reason.
Governments should not get this power. This is the basic tenet that separation of powers is based on. The only measure that helps is to just take away the means.
I am uncertain it will go global at all or go very far even in Australia as there are at least some companies that try to benefit their customers. And there still is the private web anyway that isn't affected.
Australia should be made fun off for their attempts, it isn't their first rodeo.
