Or put another way, the context matters.

So yes, you are literally correct in that they haven't put one in orbit, but it's more out of caution than capability. What they've only demonstrated in the most recent tests is that they have good reason to believe to believe that they can deorbit in a controlled fashion. But... now they've upgraded everything: raptor 3, booster v3, starship v3. Those need to prove out those capabilities again.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they continue the suborbital program for the next 3 or 4 tests. Given all the redesign, they aren't exactly at the beginning, but they have to show that they haven't broken what they previously fixed.

I find Sal Mercogliano's "What's Going on With Shipping?" to be a better source to understanding what's happening in the Strait. Here's a link to yesterday's episode "Strait of Hormuz 3-Week Recap | What is the Status of the Ships, Transits and Escort Mission?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q64cOs7GN_4

Someone also once said that the Azores are the remains of Atlantis. I simply didn't put any credence in it.

While behavioral changes around a self-driving car are plausible; they're common enough now that, at least where I live in San Francisco, regular human drivers should be pretty well acclimated to them.

The curious thing for me is that with jj I find that I don't ever really reach for a GUI/TUI anymore. At first I did try a GUI, but then I realized that the vast majority of what I want to get done conceptually didn't require it. So most of what I do now is just using the jj command line and very rarely do I reach for any sort of other tool.

The exceptions to the GUI/TUI use are resolving conflicts. For me being able to see the conflicts side by side and much more interactively choosing which I want is still more comfortable than simply hand-editing the file. And I also find I'm searching or chatting with an LLM anything I want to do something a little more advanced and less common, like rebasing all my feature branches on the most current mainline branch in one command... jj has a rich set of functions and pattern matching which I haven't (and may never) take the time to learn. But the majority of day to day interactions... just me and the command line. I would never say such a think using git by itself.

https://github.com/openai/symphony

I'm not very familiar with the space, I follow Elixir goings on more than some of the AI stuff.

It is curious... and refreshing... to see Elixir & the BEAM popping up for these sorts of orchestration type workloads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrot

From the Wikipedia entry...

*His character in contemporary popular culture—in poetry, fiction, and the visual arts, as well as works for the stage, screen, and concert hall—is that of the sad clown [...]*

A modern "Pierrot" style clown is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddles_Pity_Party

I have to admit... I wouldn't know about the Pierrot style of clown if it wasn't for Puddles...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1w5GUturU

https://www.trialmonitors.org/meet-the-committee

Plenty of accomplished people there, but as a group "unbiased observers" isn't the first phrase that comes to mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xPvxAdmhKM

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47157516

Points: 17

# Comments: 3

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47014060

Points: 30

# Comments: 6

> *SECTION 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.*

(https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...)

At sales time basically the sales price establishes the assessed value for taxes.

Again, this isn't a precise reading, but the general idea.

> second year of home ownership as they adjust to meet the sales price.

This sounds like the reassessment is triggered when a nearby sale or comparable happens. In California, the triggering event is the sale of the property itself only. So, for the entire time you own the property in California, the Prop 13 rules limit the allowed assessment to increase only up to 2% annually, assuming that the increase is supported by market price increases. Again, this isn't exactly precise legal reading, but is enough for the gist. There are limits to things like total taxation relative to market value and certain ways local governments can (in practice) tax property in excess of the limits. But the idea is to prevent an owner seeing sudden increases of 300% anytime after the initial sale.

Now when you sell your property, the new owner will face the fully assessed market value of the property for property taxes. So the new buyer could face 100's of percent taxation differences compared to what you're paying.

The hand-wavy explanation is that in the late 70's when this initiative passed (Prop 13), home values were rising rapidly due to an influx of people moving to the state and higher inflation rates of the times. Many people that owned homes, including those that had purchased their homes and retired, were getting priced out of their homes on the property tax rates. There are other rationales or rationalizations depending on where you come down on it. But Prop 13 was intended to slow property tax growth while you owned the property, with assessment reset to full market value at sale time.

I have to say this reads a bit hollow to me, and perhaps a little bit shallow.

If the content this guy created could be scraped and usefully regurgitated by an LLM, that same hack, before LLMs, could have simply searched, found the content and still profited off of it nonetheless. And probably could have done so without much more thought than that required to use the LLM. The only real difference introduced by the LLM is that the purpose of the scraping is different than that done by a search engine.

But let's get rid of the loaded term "hack" and be a little less emotional and the complaint. Really the author had published some works and presumably did so that people could consume that content: without first knowing who was going to consume it and for what purpose.

It seems to me what the author is really complaining about is that the reward from the consuming party has been displaced from himself to whoever owns the LLM. The outcome of consumption and use hasn't changed... only who got credit for the original work has.

Now I'm not suggesting that this is an invalid complaint, but trying to avoid saying, "I posted this for my benefit"... be that commercial (ads?) or even just for public recognition...is a bit disingenuous.

If you poured you knowledge, experience, and creativity into some content for others to consume and someone else took that content as their own... just be forthright about what you really lost and don't disparage the consumer. Just because they aren't your "hacks" anymore, but that middlemen are now reaping your rewards.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46908700

Points: 86

# Comments: 8

Just because something works doesn't make it right. Personally, giving up what the law is suppose to protect (individual rights) in the name of the law is something I can only see as a fool's bargain.