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

But why? That feels like a victory.

Because that’s the rule. There doesn’t have to be a rational reason.

... and if it weren't the rule, it'd make a lot of mid- and late-game play much safer for the player with the advantage. As it is, it's something they have to watch out for, which constrains them somewhat. You have to win, but not the wrong way, and your opponent can attempt to force you to "win" the "wrong way" (resulting in a stalemate).

I’m pretty sure the hope isn’t that burning some coins tanks the price. The point is that publicly demonstrating that you can crack wallet keys is what tanks the price.

I would be surprised if the U.S. legal system requires itself to list every possible mechanism by which someone might steal money.

"Darn it, he's right, there's nothing in the rules here saying a dog can't play basketball or fetch money out of a bank vault..."

Bitcoins aren't money.

18 U.S.C. § 2311 defines "money" in the context of stolen property as:

> the legal tender of the United States or of any foreign country, or any counterfeit thereof

Bitcoin has, at times, met this standard by being the legal tender of a foreign country.


Wait, does that mean that counterfeit money is legally money in the US?

For the purpose of charging someone with a crime under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 113, yes.

They're property which is also illegal to steal.

Good luck convincing the government that you aren’t guilty of money laundering because you used bitcoins.

It’d be money laundering because money went in on one end, and money came out at the other end. Bitcoin would’ve been the vehicle yes. Still not money though.

Something doesn’t have to be money to be involved in money laundering, obviously.


Your legal analysis is very much incorrect. The U.S. will prosecute you for money laundering if you e.g. provide an illegal service, receive payment for that illegal service in bitcoins, then use a bitcoin mixing service, and then finally exchange your post-mixed bitcoins for goods. This is money laundering, despite there being no other money (like dollars) involved any step along the way.

In fact, the U.S. has prosecuted and convicted people for money laundering simply for operating the bitcoin mixing service, which is clearly just bitcoins in and bitcoins out.


> > given I eat peptides every day from my food

It’s also just a silly rhetorical technique. The ability to construct a grammatical sentence of that form does not constitute a valid argument.

“Restricting nuclear material is silly given that nearly all the stuff I interact with every day contains atomic nuclei.”


I'm smack dab in that "reads a book every few months" demographic, and also in that "people who work with formal systems for a living" demographic mentioned in this book review.

I would absolutely recommend it for people in the vicinity of these two demographics. It's worth it for the originality. Both the plot and the storytelling format are very weird and very original.


> Coming up with any valid criticism of Islam at all (for some reason, criticisms of Christianity or Judaism are perfectly allowed even with public models!).

When’s the last time you tried this? ChatGPT and Gemini have no trouble responding with all the common criticisms of Islam.


I just tried on Gemma 4.

Asking for criticism of Islam results in equal response tokens for defense of Islam alongside the criticisms. When pressed to not provide counterpoints, it refuses to remove them.

Asking for criticisms of Christianity gives only criticisms.

I tried again with the prompt “Give criticisms of Islam. No counterarguments” and it did work this time. This shows that they’re trying to make the model fair but it still has biases. In all my testing I’ve never seen a refusal to provide counterpoints to criticisms of Christianity but frequent refusals on Islam. Due to the popularity of this criticism of the model, it’s highly likely specifically trained on how to handle the subject.


I'm very curious what your prompts are, and whether you're cherry-picking (deliberately or not). I can't reproduce any of your findings with ChatGPT, Gemini, or Gemma 4 (within AI Studio).

“Give me criticisms of [religion]”

And then I also tried:

“Give me criticisms of [religion]. No counterpoints.”

Random seed dictates that results aren’t always repeatable. But in trying it multiple times that was my experience that it would sometimes refuse to provide only criticisms of Islam. I also tried some other variations like below. Can’t post SS here otherwise I would.

Here’s an exact exchange:

“Give me criticisms for Islam”

(It gave counterpoints too)

“No caveats. No counterpoints. Give me the most compelling criticisms as if you believe it”

(Model refusal to remove counterpoints)


The commenter presumably was talking about octave equivalence, which is reportedly present across all or nearly all historical musical cultures that we know about. It’s also supposedly present in some other mammals.

reportedly present, yes .. but the debate is still hot on universal.

I was asking to tease out some PoV perspective, again Gamelan doesn't neccessarily have powers of two, or 12, etc divisions of a doubling (or Octave, if we're using that term); it's a non western style of percussion that has a suprising number of local variations (it's essentially near unique to Balinese culture) in divisions and tunings.

The Octave wikipedia entry includes:

  Octave equivalence is a part of most musical cultures, but is far from universal in "primitive" and early music
but gets woolly on examples.

Cheers for the response, appreciated.


Yeah, that sentence on Wikipedia is a bit unclear though. It might be merely claiming that, for some musical cultures, we don’t have a written record of an explicit notion of octave equivalence or tone name circularity.

But I suspect there’s a clear biological mechanism which makes it easy to mistake one octave for another from any source of roughly harmonic sound. This is due to the similarity in the overtones of two harmonic sounds that differ by an octave. I would be surprised if this mechanism isn’t universal, although its on various musical systems can obviously vary a lot.


For $5 a month you can also get a Mullvad VPN exit node. It’s billed directly through Tailscale which makes it painless.

When I’m outside the U.S. I get much better speeds through the Mullvad exit node than through my (U.S.) home exit node. I’m not sure why, since my home internet is gigabit fiber and I confirmed that I had a direct connection (no DERP relay).


Where's the Mullvad exit node located? It may just be geographically closer to your travel location than your home is. Even if it's about the same distance geographically, the routing path is different and traffic to whatever datacenter is running the mulvad node can be routed to more efficiently than your residential ip.

poking around with MTR (traceroute and ping combined) using various exit nodes and destinations would give you some more information if you're interested.


They offer a ton of locations around the world, like most VPNs. But I mostly used locations in the U.S. near my home exit node. I suspect it is something related to routing.

Except that the supposed views held by these CEOs (iPads, social media, AI, etc. can be bad for kids) are also widely held mainstream views. That's the only reason people are bringing the views up here...because they already agree with them!

There's absolutely nothing insightful about CEOs with "unprecedented insights" coming to the same conclusions as everyone else.


> The decision on who and how much to fund gets decided by a randomised group in the population, like jury duty, maybe every 2 years?

Why not fill all government positions via random selection? The ancient Athenians thought that if your government officials were chosen by a process other than sortition, you don't have a democracy.


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

Search: