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

Well, Signal would have to disclose the salt of course.


Why not?


By being late to computerized sorting, the postal service (An Post) never actually needed postcodes the way others did, as by the time they got computerized, fuzzy address lookups in the full address database was something that was available. It's mostly the third party couriers and marketing people pushed for post codes so they could apply techniques from other countries here.

Now asking An Post to overhaul their system to work on postcodes only is a bit like asking a postal service which requires postcodes to make them optional. It's technically possible, sure, but they're not going to want to spend the money.

_That said_, An Post's last resort routing department is pretty famous for getting the right address from pretty fragmentary information like "Mary down by the church, formerly of Kilnowhere", so I'm sure if a letter with just a eircode arrived there they'd sort it, but I imagine that An Post don't want to encourage people doing things that increases load on the labour intensive sorting.


This is delightfully referenced as the Blind Letter Office in Terry Pratchett's book "Making Money":

<Moist ran downstairs and Lord Vetinari was indeed sitting in the Blind Letter Office with his boots on a desk, a sheaf of letters in his hand and a smile on his face.

'Ah, Lipwig,' he said, waving the grubby envelopes. 'Wonderful stuff! Better than the crossword! I like this one: "Duzbuns Hopsit pfarmerrsc". I've put the correct address underneath.' He passed the letter over to Moist.

He had written: K. Whistler, Baker, 3 Pigsty Hill.

'There are three bakeries in the city that could be said to be opposite a pharmacy,' said Vetinari, 'but Whistler does those rather good curly buns that regrettably look as though a dog has just done his business on your plate and somehow managed to add a blob of icing.'>


For me at least, no. Making money by training a model from user data on such a game seems like a perfectly fine thing to do.


It has often been claimed, and even shown, that training LLMs on their own outputs will degrade the quality over time. I myself find it likely that on well-measurable domains, RLVR improvements will dominate "slop" decreases in capability when training new models.


From what I can tell: nothing, it's just that they currently do not.


On average, Gen Z uses 5 hours of social media per day in the U.S. (3-4 hours in other Western countries). I would refrain from calling this "alright".


Actually, most would be willing to get rid of it if there were other modes with positive network effects.[0]

"Individuals might experience negative utility from not consuming a popular product. With such externalities to nonusers, standard consumer surplus measures, which take aggregate consumption as given, fail to appropriately capture consumer welfare. We propose an approach to account for these externalities and apply it to estimate consumer welfare from two social media platforms: TikTok and Instagram. Incentivized experiments with college students indicate positive welfare based on the standard measure but negative welfare when accounting for these nonuser externalities. Our findings highlight the existence of product market traps, where active users of a platform prefer it not to exist."

[0] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20231468


Sure. But it also helps humans, and I'd guess currently more so.


Did my comment come in a negative tone?

It was more of a genuine question, if it can be useful for machines while not being "visible". This thinking is a slippery slope though, because it can be stretched to a point where it defeats the original purpose.


It is simply inaccessible to anyone not using the platform. You need to create an account and join the community/"server" to see anything posted there. You cannot find anything by using a search engine and are completely unable to export anything for local use.


The cheapness is due to the prevalence, and the prevalence of sugar caused sweetness receptors to be evolutionarily advantageous. There is no world in which sugar is extremely expensive, markets still function basically in the way they do now and humans experience the sensation of sweetness the way they typically do now. Cocaine and other types of "hard" drugs are qualitatively different in that regard.

Your example also doesn't really hold up because people typically don't process cocaine in the way they do with sugar and other carbohydrates. In your hypothetical scenario, we might see people consuming large amounts of pure sugar (or artificial sweeteners), but they wouldn't go to lengths of baking bread using it.


Another commenter claims the latter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45554169


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

Search: