Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mecsred's commentslogin

In the current social climate I would absolutely not trust public media to understand general consensus. Ask specific people you trust or seek out their opinions.

In mainstream media, public consensus is bought by the highest bidder, or the whims of the board of the company.

In social media, general consensus is owned by those that control the best and most bots to direct the conversation.

Unfortunately most people are too lazy/busy to seek out trusted information, and many if not most have no ability to understand if the answer they get should be trusted or not.


> In social media, general consensus is owned by those that control the best and most bots to direct the conversation.

Isn't it owned by the owner of the social media platform? Do you think Zuckerberg, Musk, etc are neutral? There is an enormous amount of evidence otherwise.

If some bots proliferate, it's because the owners allow those bots to do so.


Listen, if they actually had the ability to detect bots perfectly just from owning a big tech company, then we wouldn't need spam filters. Perfect bot detection would be a very valuable product. It is one thing to hold responsibility to those with power, it is another to ask the literally impossible of them.

> Perfect bot detection

Detection doesn't have to be anywhere near perfect to be effective, though I expect that they can do it pretty well at this point. Remember they have visibility into far more than users do.

> we wouldn't need spam filters

? Spam filters rely on spam detection, and do a sufficient job.


>Do you think Zuckerberg, Musk, etc are neutral?

I mean, why wouldn't they have the most bots?


You mean the framework Ive been running for the past 4 years or so?


You mean the same ones that consistently get bad reviews for being hot, with poor battery life, heavy and sub par screens?

https://community.frame.work/t/fw-16-review-the-good-the-bad...


It's important to distinguish between the Framework 13 and the Framework 16. The Framework 16 is by far the most ambitious of the two, and so it has had a lot more issues. I use a Framework 13, and I've loved it. It's light, has a solid frame, and runs Linux great. The battery life isn't great, and the speakers aren't either, but I've been able to mitigate the latter with EasyEffects.


If the 16 performs worse in the power efficiency department, that is not great, but it doesnt make my machine run any worse. Calling it heavy is crazy to me, the thing is tiny. If you think it's heavy you'd have trouble using an iPad. The screen thing was a shitty manufacturing issue, they released a kit to fix it, which I luckily didnt need since mine came after they fixed it in production.


I've got a Framework I am not too upset with, but the battery life (especially during sleep) is definitely one of my gripes. I still have yet to try powertop or other tools to optimize, maybe I would be proven wrong.


Sleep just ceased to exist in the last few years and got replaced with an always on, low power mode.

I believe the reasoning was partly that suspend to RAM had serious reliability issues due to the complexity of saving the state, partly that people starting expecting cell phone-like performance where eg, mail is always received.


Depends. The Intel models still support sleep on Linux (at least up to 12 or 13 gen, AMD boards only nap.


why do you have to do what people on this website tell you? Write the fun thing.


I worry about the meta too much.


I think you've found the problem!


Finding a new meta is always the new meta.


How do you plan on defending those rights if you dont vote.


If you read first and write last isnt that the opposite of committing and then reading to see what is comitted?


None of the shadows you can physically see in the photos have 0 area because the construction of the fractal isn't perfect. What a perfect construction would look like and if it's ever theoretically possible to make physical are complicated questions. Beyond me for sure, how would an infinitely thin object even interact with light?

I would assume the problem with the idea is in the fractal physics rather than the definition of area, which has been solidly useful for me.


It only worked on undirected graphs in 2023. This article is about the newest breakthrough that works on directed graphs as well.


Belief is not binary and can change with new evidence. You may believe it is likely someone is innocent, but should still witness all the evidence to update your beliefs. In the rare case that there is concrete and infallible evidence that the accused IS innocent, they are typically not prosecuted, or it wraps up very quickly.


This is the entire purpose of a jury trial. The intent is that the jury bears witness to all of the facts of the situation and listens to the prosecution's and defense's interpretation of those facts, and then decides whether the defendant committed any or all of the crimes they are accused of.


Considering they provided multiple references to exactly what they were talking about, what gave you issues? They're not talking about what you linked, and they are talking about what they linked.


So all forms of communication then? What is the end goal here, present your driver's licence and submit your comment to a Truth Verification Panel to be approved for distribution?


Most things don't have that as their explicit primary purpose.


Exactly. It's one thing to have Whatsapp used by criminals or whatever, and a totally different thing to go out and make an e2e chat app that's like "hey criminals, use this app to facilitate your drug deals!".


That is an unnecessary hyperbole. Most apps to have terms of service and most of them include clauses around doxxing others.


No, an unnecessary hyperbole would be saying people should be outraged at any app that allows unverified communication.


Yes, that's correct.

The thing is, that's not what darth_avocado was talking about. The person that introduced that idea was... you. It's your hyperbole.


If you read the whole thread, the first comment I replied to, that user said exactly that thing.


No. You changed what they said into something stupider.

They said "allows people to doxx other people online and say unverified things about them"

You changed that to "allows unverified communication"

Not the same.


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

Search: