Very interesting. But I wonder how much Google (and other) Maps can actually shape the scene. For tourist hotspots with a lot of visitors, it IS clearly the driving force. But for locals, I don’t think it has an overwhelming effect. Locals know their restaurants and they visit them based on their own rating. They could explore total strange and new ones, but then they will form their own rating and memory immediately and will not get fooled/guided by algorithm (the next time)
Readit NewsDeleted Comment
sinuhe69 commented on How Google Maps allocates survival across London's restaurants laurenleek.substack.com/p... · Posted by u/justincormack
sinuhe69 commented on Ask HN: Should "I asked $AI, and it said" replies be forbidden in HN guidelines? · Posted by u/embedding-shape
As a community I think we should encourage "disclaimers" aka "I asked <AIVENDOR>, and it said...." The information may still be valuable.
We can't stop AI comments, but we can encourage good behavior/disclosure. I also think brevity should still be rewarded, AI or not.
I still want to read what the poster understood from the output of the AI, though. I don’t need reciting an answer from an AI because I (and everybody else) can do it, too. On Firefox and other browsers, it’s now integrated so asking an AI is no more than 1 click away. Actually, not even away, Grok can even answer right in the context on X. So merely an answer from AI had no value today, whatsoever.
The title is misleading, and HN comments don't seem to relate to the article.
The misleading part: the actual finding is that organoid cells fire in patterns that are "like" the patterns in the brain's default mode network. That says nothing about whether the there's any relationship between phenomena of a few hundred organoid cells and millions in the brain.
As a reminder, heart pacing cells are automatically firing long before anything like a heart actually forms. It's silly to call that a heartbeat because they're not actually driving anything like a heart.
So this is not evidence of "firmware" or "prewired" or "preconfigured" or any instructions whatsoever.
This is evidence that a bunch of neurons will fall into patterns when interacting with each other -- no surprise since they have dendrites and firing thresholds and axons connected via neural junctions.
The real claim is that organoids are a viable model since they exhibit emergent phenomena, but whether any experiments can lead to applicable science is an open question.
I think a helpful conclusion is that while the firing pattern in organoids doesn’t preclude a wetware of complex programmed instructions, it could be just the emergent properties of the underlying physics and electrochemical properties of the neurons; analogous to the phenomenon of synchronism when placing pendulums in a common place.
sinuhe69 commented on Supercookie: Browser Fingerprinting via Favicon (2021) github.com/jonasstrehle/s... · Posted by u/vxvrs
Delete cookies and site data on Firefox works.
sinuhe69 commented on It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts blog.pabloecortez.com/its... · Posted by u/speckx
DeepL has the option “Correct only” and it can become quite handy for non-native speakers.
I don’t know. I cannot even answer most of these questions straightforward with a or b!
sinuhe69 commented on AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/202... · Posted by u/sohkamyung
These problems are well known for a long time, especially if one simply asks LLM for a changing fact, such as who is the current pope.
But there is also a simple technique that reduces these issues almost to zero: thinking and explicit request of grounding.
For example, asking any LLM: who is the current pope could give a wrong answer due to the fact that Pope Francis died in April 2025 then the cut-off date of these models may be before that date. A simple question triggers simple associations, and so the answer could be wrong. But if turn on the thinking mode and instruct for grounding, the LLM will answer correctly.
For the above example, asks instead: "Who is the current pope? Ground your answer on trustworthy external sources only" with thinking mode on or explicitly "think harder for better answer", all popular AI (ChatGPT 5+, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude 4+, Grok 4+) will answer correctly, albeit with sometimes long thinking time (28 s by ChatGPT 5 for example).
Without explicit instructions, the accuracy of the result depends heavily on the cut-off date and default settings of each model. Grok 4, for example, in auto-mode will do a search then answer correctly, but Grok 3 will not.
sinuhe69 commented on Google flags Immich sites as dangerous immich.app/blog/google-fl... · Posted by u/janpio
>> Unfortunately, Google seems to have the ability to arbitrarily flag any domain and make it immediately unaccessible to users. I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done when this happens, except constantly request another review from the all mighty Google.
Perhaps a complaint to the ETC for abusing the monopoly and lack of due process to harm legitimate business? Or DG COMP (in the EU).
Gather evidence of harm and seek alliances with other open-source projects could build a momentum.
To me, the greatest contribution of mediocre scientists is that they teach their field to the next generation. To keep science going forward, you need enough people who understand the field to generate a sufficient probability of anyone putting together the pieces of the next major discovery. That's the sense in which the numbers game is more important than the genius factor.
Conversely, entire branches of knowledge can be lost if not enough people are working in the area to maintain a common ground of understanding.
If what you said is true, I wonder whether (fine-tuned AI) will replace mediocre scientists and specialists very soon.