For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | nubg's commentsregister

Your ignorance is our opportunity :)

Can you elaborate?

That's it. It's just a rumor. A model, which I don't even know of it's this one specifically, fell short of expectations. This rumor came up around mid March.

NOTHING about this is personal! No weights were released!

> by choosing the same civilian targets

not sure what the point of this propaganda is?

ukraine doesn't shoot rockets at appartments.

hitting (dual use) energy infrastructure is a completely different level then targeting civilian homes.


Nobody except Israel is setting civilian homes as targets for their rockets. Not all energy infrastructure is even remotely „dual use“ (and this label is itself propaganda used to justify strikes on non-military targets).

All Russian infrastructure of all types would be perfectly safe tomorrow if they just stopped brutally invading their neighbors. Let's be plain and clear here: the Russian moral position lies somewhere 10 miles below the floor of the deepest ocean trench. The moral high road is pretty easy to achieve.

I don‘t think „moral high roads“ have any relevance in context of this discussion. If such conversation triggers you, try to breathe and think why first.

Yes, I find that quite often morality becomes temporarily irrelevant when it's inconvenient for the party acting immorally.

Nevertheless, this is the one of the vanishingly few conflicts where there is a good guy and a bad guy. Sometimes the universe gives us a break from endless grey areas. This is one of those!

If you find the idea of an autonomous sovereign state defending it's borders 'triggering' I might suggest some soothing jazz and a warm milk.

All the best


US seems to have hit more than a few apartment blocks in Tehran. But you're mostly right

This has happened in all ongoing conflicts but in only a few cases it is known to be intentional (Israeli strikes). I don‘t think USA or Iran does target residential blocks, but just like everyone else they may act on bad intelligence or it may be accidental.

And the reason is not just rules of engagement - such targets simply have negative value for attacker.


Dual use is nonsense, all power plants and highways are "dual use", hell so are farms, water treatment, dams... It's a term used exclusively to justify war crimes.

It doesn't, only German citizens

does citizen and German not mean the same thing? Are EU citizens living permanently in germany even considered to have a duty to either militarily or in civil service serve in war times?

Not a lawyer but the German constitution, Article 12a, speaks of men above 18, not of citizens, or even residents of Germany.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...

So that article can in theory be used to conscript any man, citizen or not, living in Germany or not.

The Wehrpflichtgesetz, which is a simple law and requires just the 50% Bundestag majority to have it changed, refines this very wide constitutional power in article 1, to require men who hold German citizenship above 18.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wehrpflg/BJNR006510956.ht...

Article 3 refines it even further to folks below 45 or 60, depending on the severity of the situation.

But yes, in theory it can be changed to include any non-German citizen man, people aged 80, living inside of Germany since a while or never having been to Germany ever, or just random men who happen to change flights at FRA.


Immigrants can be German citizens.

> Surely you're not suggesting a reduction in voting power for women.

Why not? If the male side has "getting droned your legs off and people watching it in 4k", surely everything less than that has to be on the table for the female side. Not being able to vote physically yourself (you can still influence public opinion, eg through social media, imo a far more effective action than casting 1 vote)


Great imitation

The dead internet theory terrifies me. I don't think we're at the point where it's mostly dead but we're already way past the point where any discussion worth anything can be had on the internet itself. The problem is not that everything could be AI slop but that anything could. It simply takes the wind out the sails and makes one question what's even the point if anything could just be written by a clanker. Anything you write could just be screaming out into the void, affecting no one, and just maybe adding to the training corpus for the next generation of clankers.

Just writing this made me question "what's the point" several times. If you or anyone replies cogently, I still won't have any idea if it's a person or a Chinese room.


> The dead internet theory terrifies me. I don't think we're at the point where it's mostly dead

Well - I would say the internet is not totally dead yet, but we approach the point of it being very useless now. I remember the 1990s era and early 2000s - it was almost innocent compared to the total slop era we have now. Young people today don't even know that Google Search was useful at one point in time. If you use Google Search now, you get so much irrelevant crap output that it is really useless now.


Ironically, the reason I used Google the most then was because it indexed Usenet while so many other parts of the Internet offered by the other engines were "slop". My, how the turn tables.

It still reads 100% like AI written text lol...

ig that's the irony lol... as pointed out above!

This post was written by AI, there are multiple clues.

Author, why can you not use your own words?

I am not sure what you meant to say, vs what is LLM garbage I could have prompted myself.


I can't comment on if it was written by AI or not but I found the OP informative and quite dense with useful information. Nothing stood out to me as garbage.

I agree the topic and most of the content is legit!

Which makes is even more annoying. Because you don't know which are the good bits where somebody is sharing his unique insight, and which is just taken from the LLMs world knowledge.


so you are merely just prejudiced against LLM generated content, even if it was good?

Why not accept that it is good, and forget about it being LLM?


Because sounding skeptical and "clever" is more important to some people than providing meaningful and relevant insight into the topic at hand.

?? I literally just wrote my main complaint:

> Because you don't know which are the good bits where somebody is sharing his unique insight, and which is just taken from the LLMs world knowledge.


Agreed. Personally I think about it as massaging a text with LLM is like applying filters to your pictures.

The text probably have been based entirely on the internal notes and investigations and is very informative. Would it be better if the OP wrote it entirely by themselves? Not necessarily.


I am quite confident that the following was NOT LLM:

> New users were signing up but not doing anything, they weren’t creating an org, a project, or a deployment, they just left an account sitting there.

Surely the LLM version is:

> New users were signing up but not doing anything; they weren't creating an org, a project, or a deployment—they just left an account sitting there.


It really depends on the LLM and the wrapper prompt. There are many other giveaways though - which I am not going to name to burn them.

You really should stop using LLMs to write messages complaining about LLM use though. (the "it depends" and the hyphen-as-emdash were dead giveaways).

/s


buffers salaries?

A strange way of saying, not TSA at all, and handled by a private for-profit company instead.

No, it's accurate, because TSA (or at least the feds) ultimately pay for it, but the company has some runway it can spend to keep the employees working on the assumption it'll be paid later, I.E. a buffer.

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

Search:

HN For You