This is the state of affairs today and how everyday people will talk about it.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49733300

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49298888

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” why bother reading the rest of the story

A question I had about QR codes:

Let’s say I want to produce a QR code that is as close as possible to an image (let’s say the Nike swoosh logo), if I just added that to the center and added the 3 orientation markers on the corners it wouldn’t be a proper QR code yet, my question is what is the minimal amount of edits I would need to do from that symbol to get a valid QR code?

I’m thinking of something like people buying and hoarding domains in early 00’s (even now), if I could generate the minimal QR code (minimal is important here in the same way that .com is treated as superior to .ca or .net) of well-known symbols and buy the resulting domain it points to (if it even points to a domain) couldn’t I sell this to companies with the associated domain as a re-direct as well?

He's got beauty, he's got grace, it's Mark Carney against the States.

Making everyone say "Mmmmmmmmmmmmm...ark (Carney)".

Noah built an ark, we got ourselves a Mark.

You can take my Karma, but you can never take my Carney. (I know, I know you actually can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_by_the_...)

Does that answer your question?

I like this quote because sooner or later, one discovers it for themselves

Then I remembered a passage from 'Never Split The Difference' by Voss (a book on negotiation) which went something like:

If you can get a person to "You're right" you haven't done anything. If you can get them to "That's right" you've hit the sweet spot.

When you prompt an A.I. you have pre-conditioned the answer on something which came from yourself. There is something about this which turns what would normally be a "You're (the LLM) right" to a "That's right" and that something is an implicit desire toward "I'm right".

Side note: In 'The Dawn of Everything' there is an interesting passage about the notion of private property arising from the idea that injecting some of yourself (labor) into a thing (land) makes the thing an extension of yourself (property). Doesn't this logic extend to this kind of psychosis? The C-suite's aren't deffering to A.I. they are deffering to themselves via A.I.

We are so ******, am I right?

This is tautologically true in the limiting case of infinite cost.

“For taste governs every free — as opposed to rote — human response. Nothing is more decisive. There is taste in people, visual taste, taste in emotion — and there is taste in acts, taste in morality. Intelligence, as well, is really a kind of taste: taste in ideas. (One of the facts to be reckoned with is that taste tends to develop very unevenly. It's rare that the same person has good visual taste and good taste in people and taste in ideas.)

Taste has no system and no proofs. But there is something like a logic of taste: the consistent sensibility which underlies and gives rise to a certain taste. A sensibility is almost, but not quite, ineffable. Any sensibility which can be crammed into the mold of a system, or handled with the rough tools of proof, is no longer a sensibility at all. It has hardened into an idea..."

Also, it unifies people around a book making a natural environment for book clubs to emerge from and it reduces the anxiety of pretending to look at the selection when you have already decided not to buy.

What a great idea!