Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47604201

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46150993

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Question is how many humans will forgo owning a car altogether once autonomous vehicles are ubiquitous.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45488016

Points: 5

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44819567

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44585035

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44226252

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43857832

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43817671

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43450477

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.

You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.

In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.

For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.

The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.

The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.

Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.

I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.

[0] https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1895633109649134013

Offensive Line vs. Defensive Line

The 1985 Bears’ defensive line was fearsome, featuring:

Richard Dent: Super Bowl XX MVP, 17.5 sacks, with edge speed.

Dan Hampton: Versatile tackle, powerful and quick.

Steve McMichael: Relentless interior disruptor.

This trio led the NFL with 64 sacks. The 1976 Steelers’ offensive line, anchored by future Hall of Famer Mike Webster, allowed 25 sacks in 14 games. Dent’s speed could challenge the

Steelers’ protection and run-blocking.

Edge: Bears’ D-line

Quarterback Matchup

Terry Bradshaw (Steelers): 1,177 yards, 10 TDs, 13 INTs in 10 starts, 52.5% completion. Turnover-prone.

Jim McMahon (Bears): 1,683 yards, 15 TDs, 11 INTs. Efficient, supported by a strong O-line and defense.

The Bears’ blitz-heavy “46 defense” would pressure Bradshaw, while McMahon faced less duress, leveraging his team’s strengths.

Edge: Bears

Running Backs

Franco Harris (Steelers): 1,128 yards, 14 TDs, 4.6 YPC. Powerful and finessed Hall of Famer.

Walter Payton (Bears): 1,390 yards, 13 TDs, 4.4 YPC, 49 receptions. Elusive and versatile, aided by Jimbo Covert’s O-line.

Steelers’ D (Joe Greene, L.C. Greenwood) allowed 3.9 YPC; Bears’ D gave up 3.5 YPC, 82.4 YPG. Payton’s pass-catching tips it.

Edge: Bears

Wide Receivers vs. Secondary

Steelers’ Hall of Fame duo:

Lynn Swann: 28 catches, 516 yards, 3 TDs, clutch.

John Stallworth: 19 catches, 306 yards, 4 TDs, deep threat.

Bears’ “46 defense” secondary:

Gary Fencik: 6 INTs, hard-hitting safety.

Mike Singletary: Coverage linebacker.

Led NFL with 34 INTs, 54 takeaways. Could limit Swann and Stallworth, especially with Bradshaw pressured.

Edge: Bears

Linebackers

Steelers: Jack Lambert and Jack Ham, held foes to 13.9 PPG. Legendary duo.

Bears: Mike Singletary, Otis Wilson, Wilber Marshall, allowed 12.4 PPG. Aggressive swarmers.

Both elite at run-stopping and havoc; Bears’ scheme slightly more chaotic, Steelers equally effective.

Edge: Draw

Special Teams

Bears: Kevin Butler (31/37 FGs), Willie Gault (33 YPR on kick returns). Dynamic.

Steelers: Roy Gerela (12/19 FGs), weaker returns. Steady but less impactful.

Bears’ explosiveness could sway a close game.

Edge: Bears

Verdict

The 1985 Bears edge out the 1976 Steelers. Their all-time great defense—pressuring Bradshaw with 64 sacks and forcing 54 takeaways—would contain Harris and disrupt the O-line. Payton’s versatility and McMahon’s game management sustain drives, while the secondary neutralizes Swann and Stallworth. The Steelers’ D, with Lambert and Greene, keeps it tight, but the Bears’ pressure and turnovers prevail.

Projected Score: Bears 17, Steelers 13

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43202072

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

As a concrete example, he heard there was massive illegal immigration into the US. His first encounter with this information could have come from many places, Fox news, a Republican senator, RFK Jr.'s report from the border, or a story in the New York Post. He wondered, is it true or not that millions of people entered the US through the southern border, and, that this had been happening for many years? Was it also true that there was a fleet of 'NGOs' that were providing aid to these millions of people as they made there way to the US? Was it also true that these people were being further aided and extorted by cartel membership along the way? Was it also true that hundreds of thousands of children were 'missing'? Finally, was it true that the US was funding logistics to fly hundreds of thousands of Haitians into the US?

There is information on both sides of these questions. Plenty of accounts on X have information that it's all happening, and worse. But those who would know with authority, like Secretary Mayorkas, President Biden and VP Harris conclusively stated it was not happening at all.

Dad's sources from his investigation led him to believe there was a preponderance of truth. The son's that there was not, (presuming that he did an investigation). It's too bad that the different opinion became a wedge between them.

I am confident that most disagreements among people are an outcome of their differing sources of information during their lifetime. It's self-evident, but if they endeavoured to agree on what was true and what was not true first before developing opinions about those truths, the schism can largely be averted.

I switched to Grok 3 as soon as my account had it and tried the prompt again. When running the prompt for The United States, I noticed that the stories were not current. One story stated that Antony Blinken was Secretary of State when he hasn’t been for over a month. Another talked about the upcoming presidential election, showing that the time frame Grok was operating with was months ago.

I then asked Grok 3 to review and refine the prompt itself to ensure that the stories it generated were current topics and actively the top stories users were discussing. It provided a more concise draft that did seem to get better results for a number of countries. Then I ran on the United States again and… the stories did not seem to be the biggest and more relevant. Rather than negotiations to end the Ukraine war or Macron’s visit to the US or the raging about DOGE, it came back with a Timberwolves’ player opting for free agency. Really?

So I asked Grok 3 to show me the posts that led it to choose these three stories. It came back with quoted posts, one for each story. One quickly notices that the length, tone and style of all three example posts were identical. As if they’d been written by the same person.

I asked for the user accounts that generated them. Grok 3 produced 3 user accounts. None were actual accounts. When I pointed that out, Grok 3 helpfully explained that it was providing representative quotes that it had assimilated from X.com posts, and the account names were also representative of the types of account IDs that would post those representative quotes.

I then explained that doesn’t work for me. I need to see real posts from real accounts. Grok 3 apologized then helpfully presented 3 more accounts stating they were actual user accounts.

They weren’t.

So there it is.

I’ll move on to some other endeavor.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43177346

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tsmc-arizona

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42842561

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

https://500songs.com/