Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rileymat2's commentslogin

I can't see the methodology, but it would shock me if they did not take into account the local high based on the time of year.

Edit: In the methodology section it is not clear whether they used one average or average for the date.


Yes, I expect the problem is in this summarisation of the research, not the research itself.

They are not exporting the models, they are exporting very speech like output.

I am a bit surprised they can’t make serious free speech arguments.

Surely they can and will but it's Friday and immediately complying generates headlines.

Python calls them keyword arguments.

They do, but they're also not strictly required to be named explicitly:

They can be:

    >>> def foo(bar=None):
    ...   print(bar)
    ...
    >>> foo()
    None
    >>> foo(bar="baz")
    baz
    >>> foo(bar="baz", baz="azp")
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    TypeError: foo() got an unexpected keyword argument 'baz'
But you can also use them generically:

    >>> def bar(**kwargs):
    ...   print(kwargs)
    ...
    >>> bar()
    {}
    >>> bar(site="HN", user="tonyarkles")
    {'site': 'HN', 'user': 'tonyarkles'}

And I suppose Lisp started that with :key args

Python’s perversity is fractal.

I may be jaded, but I do not trust Google for product offering stability. Obviously, Apple is a way bigger fish.

It's not a popular opinion on HN but Google is actually super stable from a B2B perspective. Even app engine (2008) is still kicking.

What is it a benchmark for? All investable public stocks or the economy writ large?

Neither? What makes you think it was supposed to be a benchmark for either.

Amongst other thing weights are based on the value of shares that are traded publicly, not market cap.


It’s a rather public example but DOGE did immense damage and was facilitated by the ability to leverage wealth into power. There is a dangerous feedback cycle.

[flagged]



I've seen these figures all over the map.

The deaths of people in other countries are the result of their corrupt and evil governments, not Musk.

> 1,045,803 people

Amazing how specific it is! Come on, dude.


https://www.reuters.com/article/business/pg-says-cut-digital...

> The consumer goods conglomerate said it cut digital spending by more $100 million between April and June of 2017 and continued with the cuts at the same rate for the rest of the year.

>P&G, however, has not cut overall media spending. Funds have been reinvested to increase media reach, including in areas such as TV, audio and ecommerce media, a company spokeswoman told Reuters.

Looks like they still spent it in marketing and advertising just not digital spending. Also for sticky old well known consumer goods I’d wager sales drop slowly.


> I do think they should try and close them in a timely fashion when the exploit is pointed out though - the longer they wait the more chance bad actors find it in addition to the security researchers.

You are assuming it is not already being actively exploited and there will be a timely response to fix it, which is why we have these ticking clocks.


It is not all about money, but microsoft had a net income of 101 billion last year, and a 36% profit margin.

I am not saying humans or AI can create "perfect" software, but NASA has shown there is a HUGE gap between what can be achieved and what commercial software has generally done. We have given software a pass on the liability for the damage it can caused when it is defective for too long, that's the only way to change this, it must hit the bottom line.


Is NASA software accessible over the public internet?


All the things up there can be contacted with radio. Some downstream data is easly readable. Sending is another thing, but satelites are in public communication space.


Not all, but wouldn't that make a case for more rigorous standards? Economically things must be prioritized, but there is a very big gap between NASA standards and typical commercial software.


To be fair NASA doesn't have to turn a profit.


There are economic realities, but there is a huge gap between not turning a profit and a 36% margin on billions.


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

Search: