Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jezzamon's commentslogin

Funny game.

Do people really prompt AI like this? Multiple times the choice was either to yell at the agent, or ask it why it did something, neither of which are very fruitful lines to go down if you know what you're doing


As someone that just started working on Google Street View, do you links to any of those bugs? Curious to take a look and see what those problems are

People need cars... But not trucks for work :)

People need cars because we designed our environments to require them. It was a choice, not an inevitability.

And here we are. Needing cars. Unless you want to spend the big money of rebuilding cities.

To be clear, the money is already being spent, it’s just a question of what we make the priority. Even just keeping the current roads useable costs billions of dollars, let alone the amount of money spent on highway expansion (which, due to induced demand, causes even more traffic).

In 30 years, every road that exists currently will have been replaced. The question is if it should be replaced with another road, or should some of them have larger sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lanes. Amsterdam has been doing this for decades and it’s going very well. They spent money that would’ve been spent rebuilding a road on making it a better general transportation option.


I've managed to avoid driving one for all but 1-2 years of my life, and I'm 42.

Your mileage, ironic phrase noted, may vary.


Yeah people never haul anything with trucks for work

Uhh a lot of people need trucks for their work

That seems not to be the case in large parts of Europe. Why do you think that is?

Only if "a lot" means <0.1% of people, at most.

Yeah? We need millions of personal, individual trucks? For work, of course, ignore all those white collar job parking lots full of extended cab pickups that get 10mpg.

Have you considered that sometimes people buy automobiles that can accommodate multiple use cases? Just because you don't need to haul hundreds of pounds of supplies every single day doesn't mean that you don't need to do it a couple times a month, or sometimes every day for short bursts of time.

With vehicles being as expensive as they are, some people prioritize the one vehicle that can suit their regular _as well as_ occasional needs.

To put it into terms this crowd might understand better, to a lot of regular people the wildly expensive and overpowered computing hardware we own seems like a ridiculous waste. And certainly, we don't need all that horsepower every minute of the day. But we need it from time to time.

I can see what you're about to say though: those people who buy trucks should just drive some crappy little three cylinder for day-to-day use and rent a truck when they need it. To which I'd ask, how would you react if someone who knew absolutely nothing about what you do on a daily basis told you that you should just buy a dinky little Chromebook and spin up a beefy EC2 instance every time you need some horsepower?

Maybe you don't understand people's needs and motivations as much as you think you do. And this is frankly where a lot of resentment to the climate action stuff comes from. A lot of know-it-alls lecturing people on how their lifestyle is completely idiotic based on very little understanding of how those people might actually be living their lives.

"I see a pickup truck with nothing in the back, therefore in my expert opinion you don't need it."


Hauling "hundreds of pounds of supplies every single day" is a fringe use case, essentialy nobody does this, it's not relevant.

"Maybe you don't understand people's needs and motivations as much as you think you do."

It's the opposite. You're confusing "needs" with "wants" and extrapolating the needs of the very, very few people who genuinely need a truck onto the entire population.

The vast majority of people use their cars to transport only themselves to work each day, then maybe pick/drop off one more person, then maybe go buy groceries.

I don't think you quite understand just how ridiculously niche valid use cases for trucks are. It's literally just towing, or some very specific off-road hauling. Everything else is going to be handled way better by something else, starting with a regular car, ending with a van.

Hell, for most people even a car is way overkill, a bike works perfectly fine to go to work each day, I assure you. So does public transport. You don't need 2 tons of steel just to to move your 100 kg body around.

To your analogy, I can use my dinky little chromebook 99% of the time and only boot up my PC when I actually need the power.


The current potus was directly elected because “know-it-alls” kept trying to jam ideologies down peoples throats. I have this awful feeling we’re going to swing back that way, and the escalation on “both sides” will be an absolute disaster.

It's because they did a very bad rollout with 2.0 which totally removed the editor, which frustrated a lot of people, so then they added all these ways to install the version with the editor again to try to fix that.

Their attention is definitely focused on the non IDE tool


Not sure if it solves your problem, but there's a command line tool for Antigravity

The lack of barrier to entry is the problem. That barrier is highly desirable in this context (for better or worse)


The lack of imagination here is the issue.

I think AI bots are perfectly capable of replicating arbitrary barriers to entry, they can and will decide which (real or not) CEOs to interact with.


Not really. Yes, it's desirable for humans because we have very limited minds.

Doesn't apply to AI.


This has to be a generally popular action... Surprised there's some people against it on hacker news but we are a slanted set of the population.


FWIW you should clarify: do you mean mentally unstable people on streets, or do you mean any form of homelessness (living in cars, surfing on friends couch, etc). Because that second category is much larger and includes a lot of sincere people who are basically just priced out of the area that grew up in


The article's headline has a bit of a slant:

"Nearly four in ten respondents, 39%, admit they have visited a tourist site mainly to take a photo or video."

... That doesn't mean that it's just for social media


And the singular makes a huge difference there.

If I'm a hundred meters away from a tourist site that I'm not overly interested in but can snatch a quick picture to send to friends? Well sure. I'd admit to that.

I visited the world's largest paving stone in Brussels to grab a picture for a friend who had told me about it.

> For 18% of respondents, an obsession with photos and social media can be considered a red flag when choosing a travel companion.

This is the number that surprised me. I'd thought that would be much higher.


Yeah, it does, as this behaviour was unknown previously. A camera was an accessory, not the focus of your trip.

Amazed by the number of kids on this thread going “but it’s always been like this!” - much like they always assume I had social media as a kid. In the 80s.


point is still same, they visit the site not for the interest in site itself, but to take the photo and that's pretty stupid reason to visit any site, though yeah "mainly" is doing there some heavy lifting


How would you distinguish a machine that outputs tokens that sound like it's suffering vs a machine that actually is suffering?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: