These companies are in bed with the government, you're not going to be saved by any legislation. Many people on this site supported Google censoring the Covid anti-vax idiots, but it should have made it very clear that Google was working at the behest of the government. They're in bed together; the government gets to do an end-run around the constitution, and Google gets to rely on special government privileges and protection. Win-win.
My guess is that guys being replaced by the steam shovel said the same thing about the quality of holes being dug into the ground. "No machine is ever going to be able to dig a hole as lovingly or as accurately as a man with a shovel". "The digging machines consume way too much energy" etc.
I'm pretty sure all the hand wringing about A.I. is going to fade into the past in the same way as every other strand of technophobia has before.
I'm sure you can find people making arguments about a lack of quality from machines about textiles, woodworking, cinematography, etc., but digging holes? If you have a source of someone complaining about hole quality I'll be fascinated, but I moreso am thinking about a disconnecion here:
It looks like you see writing & editing as a menial task that we just do for it's extrinsic value, whereas these people who complain about quality see it as art we make for it's intrinsic value.
Where I think a lot of this "technophobia" actually comes from though are people who do/did this for a living and are not happy about their profession being obsolesced, and so try to justify their continued employment. And no, "there were new jobs after the cotton gin" will not comfort them, because that doesn't tell them what their next profession will be and presumes that the early industrial revolution was all peachy (it wasn't).
DDT has been banned, nuclear reactors have been banned in Germany, many people want to ban internal combustion engines, supersonic flight has been banned.
Moreover, most people have more attachment to their own thoughts or to reading the unaltered, genuine thoughts of other humans than to a hole in the ground. The comment you respond to literally talks about the Orwellian aspects of altering someone's works.
there is no way you aren't able to discern the obvious differences between physical labor such as digging a hole and something as innate to human nature as creativity. you realize just how hollow a set of matrix multiplications are when you try to "talk to it" for more than 3 minutes. the whole point of language is to talk to other people and to communicate ideas to them. that is something that requires a human factor, otherwise the ideas are simply regurgitations of whatever the training set happened to contain. there are no original ideas in there. a steam shovel, on the other hand, does not need to be creative or to have human factor, it's simply digging a hole in the ground
So why are you wasting your precious comments on the hollow humans here? Leave us alone and talk to LLMs. No doubt they will tell you you’re absolutely right.
Excavation is an inherently dangerous and physically strenuous job. Additionally, when precision or delicateness is required human diggers are still used.
If AI was being used to automate dangerous and physically strenuous jobs, I wouldn't mind.
Instead it is being used to make everything it touches worse.
Imagine an AI-powered excavator that fucked up every trench that it dug and techbros insisted you were wrong for criticizing the fucked up trench.
> Instead it is being used to make everything it touches worse.
Your bias is showing through.
For what it's worth, it has made everything I use it for, much better. I can search the web for things on the net in mere seconds, where previously it could often take hours of tedious searching and reading.
And it used to be that Youtube comments were an absolute shit show of vitriol and bickering. A.I. moderation has made it so that now it's often a very pleasant experience chatting with people about video content.
And shovelling leads to actual muscles in our arms. People said that calculators would be the end of mathematical intelligence too, but it turns out to be largely a non-issue. People might not be as adept at calculating proper change in their heads today, but does it have a real-world consequence of note? Not really.
When I see an argument like this I'm inclined to assume the author is motivated by jealousy or some strange kind of nihilism. Reminds me of the comment the other day expressing perplexity over why anyone would learn a new language instead of relying on machine translation.
I don't think parking an old steam shovel is much of a monument, but I'll give that one to you. No one built it for display, but they did put one there for that purpose, so I'll meet you halfway. I was wrong to suggest no one would do so, and there is clearly interest in such a thing, but I can't say that I agree that a statue exists. The song exists, the steam shovel monument exists. Appreciate the correction.
You realize that making an analogy doesn't make your argument correct, right? And comparing digging through the ground to human thought and creativity is an odd mix of self debasement and arrogance. I'm guessing there is an unspoken financial incentive guiding your point of view.
Why, pray tell, would a similar series of events be relevant to a completely different series of events except as analogy? Let me use an extremely close analogy to illustrate:
Imagine someone shot a basketball, and it didn't go into the hoop. Why would telling a story about somebody else who once shot a basketball which failed to go into the hoop be helpful or relevant?
Your extremely close analogy gets to the crux of why people are disagreeing here: It doesn’t have to be analogy. You can be pointing out an equivalence.
Very interesting. Is this just a limitation of our current hardware? How much of this problem would still exist if everyone had a wider gamut monitor, say full DCI-P3? That still doesn't cover the full gamut of Oklch, but would it make the problem practically disappear?
No. We’re talking about colours way beyond the ranges of human perception.
For this specific gradient, see https://oklch.com/#0.7017,0.3225,328.36,100 and https://oklch.com/#0.86644,0.294827,142.4953,100, and look at the Chroma panel, see how far out of our screen gamuts they are (even tick “Show Rec2020”, which adds a lot of chroma around blue–green and magenta–red), and try to imagine the colours between the lime and magenta (in either direction). The red direction is probably the easier to reason about: there’s just no such colour as a light, bright red. You can have bright or light, but not both. (Its 3D view can also be useful to visualise these things: you’re building a straight-line bridge between two peaks, and there’s a chasm in between.)
I don't get it, why am I seeing the "out of gamut" colors if my sRGB monitor is unable to display them? Would the charts look different on a P3 monitor?
edit: Also, you mentioned the colors "beyond the ranges of human perception" but I don't think there is any such limitation here, the bottleneck is the hardware (computer monitors).
I don't understand why HN sometimes responds aggressively to an honest, puzzled question. It's as if being wrong (or confused) was a sin here, sometimes.
I thought yours was an honest question that warrants an answer (which thankfully Chris answered).
But once an algorithm to drag the colours back in-gamut was applied, would the lost perceptual uniformity still be a problem practically speaking, with DCI-P3 monitors?
Yes. I repeat: these colours are way outside gamut. Not just a little bit. P3 helps a little bit, Rec.2020 would help a fair bit more, but you’re still asking for a yellow that is about twice as vibrant as is possible.
The underlying problem is that the color space humans can see doesn’t have nice uniform linear boundaries. The larger your color space, the more relevant that issue actually becomes.
No, it's really the same thing with just different (and more structured) prefix lengths. In IPv4 you usually block a single /32 address first, then a /24 block, etc. In IPv6 you start with a single /128 address, a single LAN is /64, an entire site is usually /56 (residential) or /48 (company), etc.
Note that for the sake of blocking internet clients, there's no point blocking a /128. Just start at /64. Blocking a /128 is basically useless because of SLAAC.
A /64 is the smallest network on which you can run SLAAC, so almost all VLANs should use this. /56 and /48 for end users is what RIRs are recommending, in reality the prefixes are longer, because ISPs and hosting providers wants you to pay like IPv6 space is some scarse resource.
There was nobody named Sophie Wilson at the time the ARM ISA was being developed, and the reason the docu-drama was called Micro Men, is because there was nobody who appeared to be a woman amongst the key players at the time. It's not a good example of women's contribution to the field.
Apologies for the edits to my comment - wasn’t expecting such fast responses.
But as I said in an edit, it’s bad form to deadname someone even if you are referring to a period when they went by the deadname.
I think the OP was just saying that her role was underplayed more than they were complaining about the title. If you check their comment it says nothing at all about gender.
We talk about the past events all the time using names that weren’t applicable during the relevant time period. The Aztecs didn’t call themselves Aztecs. This shouldn’t be a difficult concept in general.
> it’s bad form to deadname someone even if you are referring to a period when they went by the deadname.
That's the general rule, but some people make exceptions. Sophie Wilson was involved in the production of Micro Men, so presumably signed off on however she was depicted in it. (Then again, Clive Sinclair was also involved, and per https://web.archive.org/web/20250711183307/https://www.indep... objected to his portrayal, so…)
> it’s bad form to deadname someone even if you are referring to a period when they went by the deadname
I try really hard to avoid getting anywhere near these contentious things ... but I think Wikipedia's handling of this seems reasonable, at least for some value of reasonable.
The only point I wanted to make is that it’s normal to talk about “Sophie Wilson” regardless of whether or not you’re talking about events that transpired when that was her name or about previous events. In other words, if someone is talking about Sophie Wilson’s role in ARM, they are probably just being polite and not trying to make some kind of point about gender.
I don’t see anything contentious about respecting someone’s preferences about what they like to be called. Take gender out of the equation and who would argue with a William who prefers to be called Bill?
The OP expressed confusion about why the show didn't feature Sophie Wilson. But it isn't surprising that Roger Wilson, would be used in such a historical context. There's no shame in acknowledging that during that period of time, you went by a different name, and no reasonable argument that everyone else should pretend it happened differently, either.
If there was a docu-drama about my early days, I would expect them to use my birth name, rather than my married name. Unless the events happened after my marriage.
I think there’s some confusion here. I don’t think the OP’s point has anything to do with Sophie vs. Roger. I think they’re just saying that the individual in question had a relatively minor role in the movie. They are not expecting the character in the movie to be called Sophie; they are just referring to the individual in question using their current name.
The OP explicitly wondered why Sophie Wilson was not mentioned or properly credited in the production. My post was meant to allay any potential fears that it was due to sexism or desire to misrepresent events. Rather, Sophie wasn't mentioned because Sophie didn't yet exist, in the time period that the docu-drama depicts.
This is still the same confusion. Sophie did exist, she just wasn’t called Sophie. I believe OP is complaining about the minor role that (then) Roger has in the movie.
There is no confusion. The name Sophie Wilsion literally did not exist at the time the events transpired. So it makes sense that a documentary, set at that time, would not reference it.
Quoting the OP:
"Notably, no mention of Sophie Wilson"
The OP's question was literally asking about why the name Sophie Wilson was not mentioned or given proper credit for their contribution. Please stop twisting it to make it seem like there has been some transgression or slight, that simply does not exist.
You’re quoting what they said about the article, not what they said about Micro Men. If you thought the OP’s first paragraph was about Micro Men then maybe that’s the source of the confusion.
I am not accusing anyone of any transgressions. I think you’ve just misinterpreted the OP’s comment as being about gender (as they’ve now confirmed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44939643)
Sense 2 (the sense you were thinking about) is a specialised sense used in "philosophy, linguistics", and even then the context makes it clear when this sense is meant. 'No mention of "Sophie Wilson"' might conceivably be referring to the name, but 'No mention of Sophie Wilson' refers to the person.
Historical retrospectives show systematic erasure of trans women's contributions to STEM. (Certainly this happens in other fields, too, but I haven't studied them enough to notice the pattern.) This is worth talking about, if it has happened here, and does not need to be derailed by a pointless semantics argument.
It claims HTTP/1.1 "is inherently insecure". This seems like hype, and indeed the countdown is to when some guy gives a talk - it's a promotional website for that guy.
What appears to be the issue is that HTTP/1.1 (as defined in RFC 2616) is ambiguous, and differing server implementations have differing interpretations, leading to security bugs - great, we can fix those bugs. We already obsoleted RFC 2616 and wrote RFC 7230 and RFC 7231 to eliminate this class of attacks, provided implementations follow it. It appears everything listed so far is servers/proxies that don't follow RFC 7230.
I suppose it does raise the question: do you know what your HTTP client/server's behaviour on ambiguous requests is? It would be nice to have a comprehensive test suite to find out.
