Readit News logoReadit News
unholiness commented on The Brand Age   paulgraham.com/brandage.h... · Posted by u/bigwheels
w10-1 · 8 days ago
Respectfully disagree - using PG's own wisdom.

1. You don't find a golden age by looking for interesting problems. You find it by solving customer problems, even if they're boring.

2. Luxury watches, or anything luxury or fashion, are almost by definition using brand for status signaling. That's a business where you don't control your destiny but jump in front of the crowd.

The most important thing about brand is that it reduces the information costs of reliance, which only gets more important as customer reliance is deeper and more complicated. Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Netflix, McDonalds, Halliburton, even Berkshire: they're somewhat distinguished by quality, but mainly get their premiums by their reliability at serving complicated needs.

(Indeed, the problem with the beautiful luxury mechanical watches is that they require good care and maintenance - high cost of reliability. Quartz watches just work, reducing the market for mechanicals to status symbols.)

This is (yCombinator's) golden age because software/ai and devices/(mainly Arm, somewhat robots) now can reach many more customer needs. But being reliable means marriage: lifelong devotion to this one problem. Already taken: the transferable-skill opportunities of general-purpose computers, frameworks and infrastructure, consumer internet and cloud compute. Now available: small and complex niches.

unholiness · 7 days ago
He's definitely conflating two things: watches changed from utilities to fashion items, and watchmakers changed from engineering to branding. In this example, the one change caused the other, but it's just one example. It's no excuse to paint all of branding with the same brush and ignore how, say, Milwaukee's branding provides a valuable signal of real utility.

I think it's tempting to be equally dismissive of branding and fashion because they are both forms of virtue signaling and therefore have all its perversions. However, they're operating on different actors. Branding is virtue signaling by companies to its customers. Fashion is virtue signaling by customers to other people.

unholiness commented on Show HN: Linex – A daily challenge: placing pieces on a board that fights back   playlinex.com/... · Posted by u/Humanista75
unholiness · 15 days ago
I like it!

One big annoyance with the power-ups is that the failure condition is checked before you can use them. It's particularly painful since they all replace the current piece, so they seem tailor-made to get rid of a nasty piece that would cause you to lose... but then they have to be used before you get to that piece that would cause you to lose!

Anyway, both times I played I got in the 40s without any power-ups used, then saw that the next piece would cause me to lose but none of the powers could save me. Probably the ideal fix is just to not trigger a loss while you still have powers?

unholiness commented on Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge   time.com/7380854/exclusiv... · Posted by u/cwwc
nickserv · 17 days ago
The government is why they are dropping their pledge.

https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-hegseth-ai-pentagon-mil...

unholiness · 16 days ago
No, their Responsible Scaling Policy and their government contract are not related. The RSP governs how Anthropic itself behaves w/r/t developing, testing, and releasing new models. The contract was signed with stipulations around how the government can use existing models (No mass surveillance, no military targeting without a human in the loop) which Hegseth wants removed in a standoff that hasn't yet resolved.
unholiness commented on Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge   time.com/7380854/exclusiv... · Posted by u/cwwc
PowerElectronix · 16 days ago
Same with everything, right? You could say the same with nukes, electricity, internet, the computer, etc... But if you look at it without paying attention to the "ultimate tool for humanity" hype, it doesn't really look that much of a threat or a salvation.

It won't end civilization for dropping the guardrails, but it will surely enable bad actors to do more damage than before (mass scams, blackmail, deepfake nudes, etc.)

There are companies that don't feel the pressure to make their models play loose and fast, so I don't buy anthropic's excuse to do so.

unholiness · 16 days ago
One difference is the very real possibility that AI will not just be a "tool for humanity", but a collection of actors with real power and goals. Robert Miles has an approachable explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zATXsGm_xJo
unholiness commented on Oxide raises $200M Series C   oxide.computer/blog/our-2... · Posted by u/igrunert
sylvinus · a month ago
Love Oxide and what they're building, but I'm not sure raising even more VC money is the way to build a generational company. Quite the opposite? With money you don't need, you're trading faster growth for more dependencies on third parties that will seek a ROI eventually?
unholiness · a month ago
Not sure this is necessarily for faster growth. Riding out the AI bubble's rise and/or its bursting will each present a lot of need for capital and a lot of barriers to raising it. They're not an AI company but they obviously have tons of exposure across the stack to these markets. They may simply be making the call that this is a better time to be raising money than the years to come.
unholiness commented on The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal   frommers.com/tips/airfare... · Posted by u/donohoe
mothballed · a month ago
I would just let the airlines pick if they want TSA screening or not. Customers could buy flights with whatever security level they want.

If you fly intrastate in Alaska there is no screening on commercial flights (it seems TSA must not be required on non-interstate flights). Technically it's still illegal to bring a gun but no one would know one way or the other. It really didn't bother me that there was no security, in fact, it felt great, and at least I could be sure if a bear met us on the tarmac someone would probably be ready.

I know of one other story I heard secondhand from someone experiencing it, of a small regional airline in the South, where if you checked a gun, the pilot just gives it back to the passenger...

unholiness · a month ago
Security is a classic example of a public good where this doesn't work well. The cheapest ways to secure an airport (sharing queues, staff, protocols, machines, training, threat models) are going to also benefit those who opt out, creating a tragedy of the commons.
unholiness commented on Non-Zero-Sum Games   nonzerosum.games/... · Posted by u/8organicbits
unholiness · 2 months ago
Loving the blog in both style and content, hope to have time to read more in the future!

A random note in case Non-Zero-Sum James is looking: It's frustrating that reading footnotes[0] requires scrolling back and finding your previous place. A link from the footnote back to the original place in the text or something that reveals a footnote in-place (e.g. on hover) is fairly universal and very helpful!

[0] e.g. https://nonzerosum.games/emergencespirals.html#notes

unholiness commented on Boltzmann brain   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol... · Posted by u/josephwegner
unholiness · a year ago
The way I see it:

The reasonable things that continue happening each day in our universe would be extremely unlikely if we are just Boltzman brains. Every bit of sensible reality would be coincidental. The very continuance of that reality is an experiment constant proving the falsehood of Boltzman brains, at a rate of oh maybe millions of sigmas of confidence per second.

Now, if you believe the universe came to an initial state due to pure thermodynamic coincidence, millions of sigmas per second is laughably small compared to the chance that a whole universe outside your brain popped into existence, so Boltzman brains are the most believable thing and you should believe in them.

This completes a pretty direct argument: Believing the initial state of the universe was a thermodynamic coincidence forces you to believe in Boltzman brains, Boltzman brains force you to believe reality should collapse immediately, and reality does not collapse immediately. Therefore you simply can't believe the first assumption, that initial state of the universe was a thermodynamic coincidence.

Accepting this is often called the "Past Hypothesis". It's spoken of in deferential terms and said that it can't ever be proven... But to me this is rock-solid proof, with more sigmas of evidence than any other scientific discovery and increasing by the second! Can't we just call it the Past Theorem already?

unholiness commented on Trellis – 3D mesh generative model   trellis3d.github.io/... · Posted by u/tarr11
nickpinkston · a year ago
Anyone see anything like this for GenAI for BREP CAD?

This is using meshes which seem a lot easier, and I'm unsure who's working on BREP or at least models that have some feel for dimensions and physics.

ie It could still be meshes, but the designs would be physically reasonable like how a skilled tradesperson may make a device with their intuition without running FEA, etc.

unholiness · a year ago
As excited as I am about this jump from the fuzzy NeRFs/gaussian splatting to real meshes, I'm not holding my breath for BREP generation. Mesh to BREP has always been fraught because for anything beyond "find the cylinders", it becomes really subjective what a good representation is, and your average mesh likely doesn't have any simple representation that captures the full organic shape with analytic definitions.

With mesh faces now supported in BREP, I'm more optimistic about a mixed modeling approach, where you can do the braindead find-the-cylinders conversion but keep the rest mesh, not needing to force it into some eldritch contortion of BSurfs.

unholiness commented on A relativistic framework to establish coordinate time on the Moon and beyond   arxiv.org/abs/2402.11150... · Posted by u/croes
alganet · 2 years ago
> yielding 58.721 μs/day

Can someone kind explain this unit for me? microseconds per day.

Does that mean that the relativistic difference is cummulative? In other words, does it add up over time?

unholiness · 2 years ago
That's right. While a day passes on earth, a day minus 58.721 μs passes on the moon (which is moving faster than the Earth).

This multiplies, so after a million days a clock on the moon will read 58 seconds behind a clock on the earth.

u/unholiness

KarmaCake day1101August 20, 2013View Original