Hacker News: lvzw

New comment by lvzw in "The scariest "user support" email I've received"

lvzw — Mon, 20 Oct 2025 21:39:21 +0000

> Phishing emails disguised as support inquiries are getting more sophisticated, too. They read naturally, but something always feels just a little off — the logic doesn’t quite line up, or the tone feels odd.

The phrase "To better prove you are not a robot" used in this attack is a great example. Easy to glance over if you're reading quickly, but a clear red flag.

New comment by lvzw in "Why our waistlines expand in middle age: aging stem cells shift into overdrive"

lvzw — Fri, 02 May 2025 17:58:15 +0000

What effects do you think lifting weights regularly has on one's mentality, and why don't you think that those are not good effects?

New comment by lvzw in "AI code review: Should the author be the reviewer?"

lvzw — Thu, 01 May 2025 22:58:40 +0000

I think that this is a big reason that agents aren’t prevalent as one might otherwise expect. Quality control is very important in my job (legal space, but IANAL), and I think while LLMs could do a lot of what we do, having someone whose reputation and career progression is effectively on the line is the biggest incentive to keep the work error free - that dynamic just isn’t there with LLMs.

New comment by lvzw in "Ingesting PDFs and why Gemini 2.0 changes everything"

lvzw — Wed, 05 Feb 2025 18:48:02 +0000

> accuracy is measured with the Needleman-Wunsch algorithm

> Crucially, we’ve seen very few instances where specific numerical values are actually misread. This suggests that most of Gemini’s “errors” are superficial formatting choices rather than substantive inaccuracies. We attach examples of these failure cases below [1].

> Beyond table parsing, Gemini consistently delivers near-perfect accuracy across all other facets of PDF-to-markdown conversion.

That seems fairly useful to me, no? Maybe not for mission critical applications, but for a lot of use cases, this seems to be good enough. I'm excited to try these prompts on my own later.

New comment by lvzw in "More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD"

lvzw — Sun, 22 Dec 2024 20:22:17 +0000

In what sense were these local rates "created artificially"? Are you suggesting that these people are being forced to work agaisnt their will?

New comment by lvzw in "Google Cloud files complaint due to Microsoft's anti-competitive licensing"

lvzw — Wed, 25 Sep 2024 16:33:22 +0000

Relevant market definition is not so straightforward in antitrust matters. I'm not a product area expert (but do have experience in antitrust litigation) and am certain that Microsoft's attorney's would say that such a market is too narrowly defined.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/atr/merger-guidelines/tools/market-d...

New comment by lvzw in "Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones"

lvzw — Mon, 05 Aug 2024 19:08:36 +0000

I think a year for the remedies is optimistic - could drag on for a while. Also worth mentioning that it is not an exclusivity agreement - it is a default agreement.

New comment by lvzw in "Epic vs. Google: Google Loses"

lvzw — Tue, 12 Dec 2023 02:18:18 +0000

A company need not have 100% market share to have monopoly power in a market.

New comment by lvzw in "Nothing Phone says it will hack into iMessage, bring blue bubbles to Android"

lvzw — Wed, 15 Nov 2023 01:58:31 +0000

From the amount of utility you derive from a phone, and the life span of phones these days, $429 seems cheap to me. But it’s all relative I suppose.

New comment by lvzw in "Google pays Apple 36% of the revenue it earns from searches in Safari"

lvzw — Mon, 13 Nov 2023 19:50:10 +0000

Exclusive deals can present antitrust issues, but the kicker is that this isn't even an exclusive deal, it's a default deal! Users can still can still use other search engines on iOS devices.

New comment by lvzw in "Nearly half of non-Tesla EV owners want to go back to ICE"

lvzw — Fri, 20 Oct 2023 01:32:27 +0000

Internal Combustion Engine

New comment by lvzw in "When feeling worn out, rotate"

lvzw — Tue, 21 Feb 2023 23:36:22 +0000

Apologies for missing this! I really appreciate the thoughtful response. I'll be joining the Booth part time program in the fall.

New comment by lvzw in "When feeling worn out, rotate"

lvzw — Mon, 13 Feb 2023 16:25:57 +0000

I'm planning on starting a part-time MBA in the fall. Did you enjoy your experience in your program? Would you do it again?

New comment by lvzw in "Adobe to acquire Figma for $20B"

lvzw — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:06:23 +0000

The antitrust agencies in the United States (FTC and DOJ) do not proactively give approval for companies to merge. After official merger filings have been made (which they have not in this case), the FTC or DOJ have a process in which they gather evidence and determine whether they have grounds to challenge the proposed merger. [1]

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

New comment by lvzw in "Adobe to acquire Figma for $20B"

lvzw — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:03:28 +0000

This is not correct. There will almost certainly be a second request issued by the FTC or DOJ in this matter, and my guess is that it will almost certainly get challenged by one of those agencies. [1] In building their case, the agencies will reach out to users and competitors of the companies. Adobe and Figma know that this merger will certainly be contentious on antitrust issues, and I bet there is a large breakup fee that Adobe would have to pay for Figma if the merger was blocked for this reason.

[1]: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

New comment by lvzw in "Adobe to acquire Figma for $20B"

lvzw — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:59:53 +0000

Announcing an intent to acquire a company is not against any competition law. The merger has not been finalized or even officially announced by the parties it seems. The FTC or DOJ will review this merger and if they deem it anticompetitive, they will challenge it.

New comment by lvzw in "Adobe to acquire Figma for $20B"

lvzw — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:57:40 +0000

Current antitrust laws do not require harm to have already occurred to challenge a merger. Once an intent to merge has been filed, the FTC/DOJ has a certain amount of time to issue a 'second request'. [1] If the FTC/DOJ finds during their review of the materials turned over from the second request that the merger is likely to be anticompetitive, they will sue to block the merger. This merger in particular would likely be mostly scrutinized according to the horizontal merger guidelines, given the parties' overlap in a specific product/market. [2]

[1]: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... [2]: https://www.justice.gov/atr/horizontal-merger-guidelines-081...