We could however share the ideas of what we're building so that other people could build sometime similar to fill their own needs or the ideas could be incorporated in to other projects

A lot of random things come to mind for me, like I started (but for now abandoned) some kind of picture icon viewer by date on Linux desktop. A lot of smartphone file viewers display pics this way automatically and it lets you look at what pics you've accumulated day by day, but I didn't see this feature on different Linux file viewers (and it was apparently a requested feature others were looking for).

So what have you built privately with AI that you might like to share ideas about?

edit: alternatively, are there any things you'd like to see others create (and I suppose a comment about what holds you back from creating them)?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50159886

Points: 3

# Comments: 4

(I'm fine with Wayland for those who want it but it still breaks things I've used)

meh, this is legitimately disputed today, for example as there are less smokers today lung cancer has gone down but Parkinson's disease has gone up, suggesting nicotine does have some cognitive benefits

haha, lol even

> pirates stealing from pirates

arr matey this is the Wild West of the AI frontier...

People try to wrangle the indeterministic outputs through deterministic layers to convert the indeterminism to something determined

Essentially renewables and other eco-friendly initiatives are being adopted globally for economic reasons rather than that of concern about "climate change".

It's just a question of if they are being adopted fast enough.

The "other side's" position is basically yes — the strong version being that there's no real hurry to begin with, the weaker position that even if there is some damage being done, it is survivable (probably my position ultimately presently, as we see some tangible environmental harms being done but are still here).

HN's position I gather is "no", and they want to see more done in an eco-friendly direction above what seems to be naturally adopted for economic reasons, but there may not be a consensus on what pace is needed exactly. "Degrowthers" go a step further in arguing much more dramatic action is needed to avert environmental problems.

So it's really a question of if the rate of more "eco-friendly change", being driven mainly by economics, is sufficient currently, or if those changes should be sped up and to what degree.

As perhaps a further way to sidestep this discussion, we might entirely focus on what ways to speed up the adoption of "eco-friendly" initiatives that are economically viable, which seems like a "win-win" for everyone.

as, for example when I've tried to look up what remedies are proposed for things like excess "carbon emissions", the ideas seem inconsistent and all over the place, suggesting there is not really direct proof of man changing the climate by human actions (for example, planting "1 trillion trees" was suggested; now people aren't sure if that will solve the problem or not)

I could also see corporations and government creating environmental problems (like "man-made climate change", if it's real) and then offering solutions they design, for their own profit (as it's often the same groups of people running these operations in practice; although, this position is somewhat irrational as the leaders of such entities would be effectively poisoning themselves)

Also, I gather the HN consensus position is that non-renewables are harmful and that we can simply switch to renewables to solve issues related to (man-made) climate change. While I do like renewables in theory, and they could possibly cut down on a pollution (?), other more dramatic environmentalists point out that even renewables are probably not sustainable at some point as we will have more people than we have resources to supply them with. Alternatively, many people defensive of non-renewables point out that a lot of catastrophic environmental predictions did not remotely come to fruition.

So to recap: "climate change" is kind of vague and probably a distraction from tangible environmental issues we do agree on, and renewables either are not a sufficient solution to the problem of scarce resources running out or alternatively are not necessary to adopt to solve different environmental problems (although the economics are there and they will probably be adopted for a lot of their affordable benefits in coming years).

(Lastly, it's ironic that the tech community here which is against the over-use of non-renewables is probably passively accepting of AI datacenters which have amped up their consumption of even non-renewables to fuel their operations.)

I welcome discussion on the topic as I take somewhat of an uncommitted neutral view of if climate change is a "thing" or not (I rather would like to see discussion of more concrete solvable environmental issues).

And does the access act as a kind of fair use? Not like Nitter is making money from the access to the content

I think screens are time tested and will have some enduring use for now, but I could see people liking this; I've wanted to try a projector screen out but there was a whole rabbit hole of choices that didn't seem to improve upon screens for me for now (and this takes things in a whole other direction with projection)

I thought telegram was flagged as insecure like a decade ago, it's never really been "very secure"

Like any number of articles like this: https://hackernoon.com/7-reason-why-telegram-is-insecure-by-...

Like any number of articles like this: https://hackernoon.com/7-reason-why-telegram-is-insecure-by-...