Supports mac and linux, but the linux part could use a bit more work.

With every emerging technology or change, let's assume any particular concern about the technology will likely live somewhere on the spectrum from real to unsubstantiated. It seems important to tell the difference, because how will we know where to spend our time, money and effort if we waste it equally on all apparent problems, real or not? So: how do we tell the difference? One way is to look at history, and learn from our mistakes when engaging with new technology. In many cases, real problems emerge which at first might look like tail risks. "Illusory" problems might look real early on, but often have to do with matters of tradition, appearances or status-quo bias.

Let's take an example: the steam engine. How much of the earliest criticism was about the greenhouse gas emissions? Nobody conceived it. And how much of it was about morals, religion, junk science, or protecting incumbents? If we can identify patterns across these, it might make us better at identifying problems in the future, too.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49795122

Points: 74

# Comments: 57

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49690366

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

> Planetary engulfment as a solution to solar-model discrepancies and its implications for planetary systems https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stag1527

For the press release, something like The Real Sun and Its Simulations Disagree. A Planet That Fell In Early Might Explain It. might be easier to follow.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49187583

Points: 23

# Comments: 6

I found it helpful. If anyone wants to fold in the advice from this article, feel free.

What about this requires more than a few ms (at most) on the backend, and how does a local copy make that better? It seems like a local copy would create even more inconsistency (and if it doesn't, the backend should be fast too!)

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48196570

Points: 962

# Comments: 658

I've also noticed a pattern in Sean's writing where he redefines common English words to mean something different than the usual definition, potentially for a punchy title (I've seen "taste" and now "ego"). As engineers we often have to find analogous words for ideas that don't have them yet, but in this instance I think the article would be a lot less muddy if he just used "confidence." I appreciate he acknowledges this discrepancy in the comments, but maybe too much ego gets in the way to fix it during editing :)

From the article:

> However, Google's privacy policy — a document that users often blindly agree to after purchasing a device — makes it clear that videos can be captured when a device is offline. “That means you may not see a visual indicator when your camera is sending the video footage to our servers," the policy states.

I looked this up because no link was provided [1]. The full quote is "Some models of our cameras support recording of video footage while offline. For these cameras, video footage will be uploaded when the camera goes back online after the video footage has been recorded. That means you may not see a visual indicator when your camera is sending the video footage to our servers. However, in those instances, a visual indicator would have been visible when the camera was actually recording the video footage."

So in this case, the author mangles "offline" (no Internet) with "recording".

Another quote:

> Google didn’t immediately respond to questions from The Associated Press about how the footage of the masked person was captured while the camera was apparently disconnected

The cameras was very clearly disconnected after the footage was recorded, because you can see the suspect begin to disconnect the camera.

There are many other examples of poor reporting in this article but I will leave it to the reader to find them.

[1] https://safety.google/intl/en_ca/products/nest/