Loading comment...
Readit NewsLoading parent story...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
rich_sasha commented on Claude’s C Compiler vs. GCC harshanu.space/en/tech/cc... · Posted by u/unchar1
It's really cool to see how slow unoptimised C is. You get so used to seeing C easily beat any other language in performance that you assume it's really just intrinsic to the language. The benchmark shows a SQLite3 unoptimised build 12x slower for CCC, 20x for optimised build. That's enormous!
I'm not dissing CCC here, rather I'm impressed with how much speed is squeezed out by GCC out of what is assumed to be already an intrinsically fast language.
It's converging back towards its intrinsic value.
rich_sasha commented on If you've got Nothing to Hide (2015) jacquesmattheij.com/if-yo... · Posted by u/jacquesm
I think that "nothing to hide" is a strawman.
No one really says that in an absolute sense, it is always in context, what it usually means is "I trust a particular institution with the data they collect", not "I will give my credit card number to everyone who asks".
For example, let's say you approve of installing security cameras monitored by police in your residence, if you say "I have nothing to hide" what you are actually meaning is "there is nothing these cameras can see that I would want to hide from the police". I think it is obvious that it doesn't mean you approve of having the same cameras installed in your bathroom.
The real question is one of trust and risk assessment. Are the risks of revealing a piece of information worth it? how much do you trust the other party? not the literal meaning of "nothing to hide".
Indeed. And there's risk-reward tradeoff. The debated argument says "have all my data if you want for no reason". The stronger case is, "what do I get in return"?
Often in this discussion it's about a society-wide standard. The benefit to "me" might be that e.g. the police can do their job well, hopefully protecting me from criminals, while sticking to reasonable and trusted privacy controls (e.g. intrusive data collection requires a court warrant, and I trust the courts enough to do a good job). That's very different to uploading all social media conversations logs to NSA because "nothing to hide".
Looping back to this article, it is unclear if there was ever ant good reason to record religion in Amsterdam. Nor would I exclusively blame administrative procedures on the Holocaust - though I'm sure it made matters worse.
The police who stopped him had their radios jammed during the interaction; so I'm not particularly sympathetic to the title's artificial framing:
> Fined $48k for using a jammer to keep commuters from using phones while driving
The person jammed 911, both on and off the freeway every single work-day for months. They also jammed legal usage of mobile devices on the freeway and in the surrounding area. They were rightfully fined, and if it discourages others then so much the better.
And there's nothing wrong with passengers using phones. In fact often most people in the car are not the driver...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
I wonder if it would be worth creating an app that just sends you on dates using AI. Like, you don't even get to look at the other person's profile. Then afterwards you would report to the app whether you would go on another date with the person you just went out with or not.
I can imagine the AI agents chatting to each other, figuring out what you like. I can see the chain of thought going "I can't say XYZ is lazy and rough, instead I'll say he saves his energy for what really matters, and lives to the full".
So many apps are just image attractiveness scoring plus some superficial conversation with pleasantries, which are both things AI do well at.