Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | saikia81's commentslogin

because the tech is hard to envision right (or sci-fi writers would be rich), but the consequences are clearer

There weren’t any consequences of the tech shown. There as just a justifiably untrusting person catching their partner’s infidelity. They’d have had problems anyway. The tech didn’t cause or exacerbate the issue.

To point out it was this particular person’s issue and not the tech, everyone one else in tbe show also had the tech yet were doing fine. They were shocked when they meet one person who didn’t have it. so clearly from the writing itself it was normalized and no one was having issues, otherwise they’d have all brought up the issues


No, it’s because it aims to be a relatable, compelling story, and not a technical instructions manual.

Not everyone thinks about getting rich all the time.


In the united states the first amendment of the constitution makes it so that any public usage of camera tech cannot be controlled by the state. Except in some very specific scenarios.

> In the united states the first amendment of the constitution makes it so that any public usage of camera tech cannot be controlled by the state

I'm repeating a comment of mine from another thread, but this is not true. Both recording the audio of a conversation that you aren't party to and deriving biometrics from video without consent are both broad categories that are regulated depending on the state you're doing the "public usage" in.


I don't mind anyone taking my photo in a public place. That was always legal. It's what's done with it that could be illegal. E.g. if they use my photo in a commercial without my consent? Illegal.

If it was also illegal to (for example) input a photo of someone non-consenting into any kind of AI model or post it to any other online service? Then I don't see much problem.


The fact that every new technology has had pushback before adoption makes your claim meaningless.

That is simply not true. There was no pushback for washing machines or vacuum cleaners or refrigerators, to name just a few.

Furthermore, the point isn’t the pushback but the ultimate failure and thus lack of adoption. I feel like that’s fairly obvious.

This idea that all new tech faces pushback is at best ignorant and at worst a wilful deception to justify every draconian idea pushed forward by tech bros who only care about extracting money from people at all costs.


And nobody should go hungry, and nobody should lack basic healthcare. But here we are balancing the scales.

We shouldn't be balancing things we want to do for people in need against what kinds of things we will do to peaceful people that we shouldn't do. Nonmaleficence precedes beneficence.

In any case, abundance generally comes from not crossing those lines — from nonmaleficence. The US crosses those lines a plenty, but still less so than the EU, and consider how much higher its average wages are:

EU Europe average ≈ $30,500

United States ≈ $68,000


If I understand you. This goes with the presupposition that crypto will replace the bank and its features exactly. You might then be right on the convergences. But sounds like a failure to understand that crypto is not a traditional bank. It can be less and more.

A few examples of differences that could save money. The protocol processes everything without human intervention. Updating and running the cryptocoin network can be done on the computational margin of the many devices that are in everyone's pockets. Third-party integrations and marketing are optional costs.

Just like those who don't think AI will replace art and employees. Replacing something with innovations is not about improving on the old system. It is about finding a new fit with more value or less cost.


I may have misunderstood you, but transactions are already processed without human intervention.

> Updating and running the cryptocoin network can be done on the computational margin of the many devices that are in everyone's pockets.

Yes, sure, that's an advantage of it being decentralised, but I don't see a future where a mesh of idle iPhones process my payment at the bakery before I exit the shop.


That is only bitcoin. There are coins and protocols where transactions are instant


calling the llm model random is inaccurate


I'm guessing you believe that a person is always completely responsible for their actions. If you are doing root cause analysis you will get nowhere with that attitude.


In the case of software RCA, but if a crime is committed then many times there is a victim. There could be some root cause, but ignoring the crime creates a new problem for the victim (justice)

Both can be pursued without immediately jumping to defending a crime


There’s many ways that people can fail where they aren’t the root cause.

These failures aren’t on that list because they require active intent.


They made oauth client (cognito oauth credential grant) a subscription, raising our bill X10. Just for having the client registered in the dashboard, even without using that oauth client application. we saw thousands of cost, for zero usage.


Yeah, the tiered pricing changes for M2M[0] in 2024 didn't make much sense to me. I guess I don't understand their COGS, though.

0: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2024/05/amazon-co...


the best thing that you can do for yourself maybe, but not for them...


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

Search: