There is no privacy invasion here (that isn't even the right argument). If you think that HN misrepresents the data then sure that's a valid concern, but it's not a privacy invasion. But really, the HN date is when it got exposed initially.
It's quite hard to see those sadly due to how freight operators handle traffic - you often have to use word-of-mouth and FB groups to track them. I know there's a lot of railfans that have this data, but I'm not sure it's in a format one can actually use.
I mean it does feel right for the government to regulate visible light? The same way you can't have flashing lights on the road or have a massive blinding beacon in your backward, you can't yell on the airwaves. I'm sure if visible light could be seen from halfway across the globe, we would also have that regulated.
There's also the bomb every datacenter doing AI thing that LeCun has proposed, which is a lot more practical than this. Or perhaps a self replicating work that destroys AIs.
This was why I pointed out that if I was a nation state worried about this, I'd host my AI training at the cloud providers of the country making those threats... Let them bomb themselves. And once they've then destroyed their own tech industry, you can still buy a bunch of computational resources elsewhere and just not put them in easily identifiable data centres.
We put our servers in datacenters for a real reason, not just for fun though. Good luck training an AI when your intra node communication is over the internet (this is obviously a technical problem, but the truth is we haven't solved it).
Even today there are people who have little skepticism and take mysticism seriously, it is likely that any evidence against this person did not survive the times.
Indeed. Even today "there are people...". What I am curious about is how much does the average degree of seriousness differ between our and their times. We seemingly tend to assume people of the distant past predominantly were extremely naïve and sincerely believed whatever we find written by them. But what if they were almost as rational as modern people are and that's we who are naïve when reasoning about their beliefs?
I think it's less about being naive and more about the base of information.
I believe I need antibiotics when I have an appropriate infection, because modern medicine has built an entire catalogue of reasons.
If we don't have that information, and we do have "experts" saying it's because our autumn sacrifice wasn't good enough, then my guess is that's what most people will believe.
Make the best choice you can with the available information, sort of thing.
It would be great if the companies who complained about ghosting and quite quoting quit ghosting and constructive dismissal, but the world isn't all perfect sadly.
Their entire point is to be different then that - if you want servers just go to HPE and spec out some servers. (Which really does beyond small scale, but at the rack level it's unheard of)
The future itself is the first derivative, it's a bet on the rate of change in terms of availability and/or consumption of a resource (hence the slope of the production curve), the second derivative is rate of change in the interest in the rate of change of the availability :-).
If doesn't have to be good, but sometimes if I click one wrong video and then leave (to go do something for instance), the algorithm will assume this is my new hyperfixation and I will have to just ignore my recommended at that point.
It gets really bad with politics and news for instance, where I can watch one video on some topic and then suddenly YouTube decides to give me everyone and their mothers opinion.
