We'll see about Venezuela, it's early to say. In Ukraine, a short conflict would have been better than a prolonged one, and in case of annexed territories, the status and civil rights of annexed populations should have been the focus of any peace agreement. The territory doesn't care who owns it, it's the people that suffer.
For example, the Israeli occupation and progressive annexation of Palestine is especially criminal because they have no intention of including the native population in their ethno-state- it's an annexation with ethnic cleansing or, if needed, genocide.
But how often would your preferred candidate change compared to which / how much news you consumed? Most people I know are fairly set in their political opinions and already only consume news that confirms their biases
My kiddo is celebrating their second set of holidays this year. I have many friends who espouse some variant of “I don’t want to have kids because I don’t want to pass on my ‘messed up’ genes/the world doesn’t need more people/some other sad excuse”. It makes me wonder what their lives will look like then they’re 40-80 years old.
Sad thing is, it’s affecting not just their lives when they are 80 years old, but ours too! Every childless old person is a person for which someone needs to take care of who isn’t family.
That’s not to imply people don’t have the right to choose if they have kids or not — but let’s not pretend that we are not all paying the price for that decision.
Plus most of what needs to be done is highly informal and unstructured. Money can only buy so much. It can't buy someone who is going to actually represent your interests, rather than charging gobs of money for the illusion.
Why do people in your circle not like AI?
I have similar a experience about friends and family not liking AI, but usually it’s due to water and energy reasons, not because of an issue with the model reasoning
If your circle has any artists in it, chances are they'll also have a very negative perception, although influenced heavily by the proliferation of AI-generated art.
At least personally, I've seen basically three buckets of opinions from non-technical people on AI. There's a decent-sized group of people who loathe anything to do with it due to issues you've mentioned, the art issue I mentioned, or other specific things that overall add up to the point that they think it's a net harm to society, a decent-sized group of people who basically never think about it at all or go out of their way to use anything related to it, and then a small group of people who claim to be fully aware of the limitations and consider themselves quite rational but then will basically ask ChatGPT about literally anything and trust what it says without doing any additional research. It's the last group that I'm personally most concerned about because I've yet to find any effective way of getting them to recognize the cognitive dissonance (although sometimes at least I've been able to make enough of an impression that they stop trying to make ChatGPT a participant in every single conversation I have with them).
Pretty much hit the nail on the head -- while there are some artists, most are from traditional broadly "intellectual" fields. Examples: writers, journalists, academia (liberal arts), publishing industry...
That's a good point; "art" might be a bit too narrow to accurately describe the type of field where people have fairly concrete concerns about how AI relates to what they produce. I'd be tempted to use the label "creative work", but even that doesn't quite feel like it's something that everyone would understand to include stuff like written journalism, which I think is likely to have pretty similar concerns.
The things that make social media net-negative--advertising, infinite scroll, global scale--aren't part of HN. Facebook wasn't net-negative when it was just a website that a few million people used to post semi-publicly with their community.
Once content begins being served by algorithm social networks start taking a nose dive in terms of quality and user experience and they slowly spiral into lowest common denominator smut. It juices engagement and therefore advertising dollars for a time, but slowly half of users start to recognize the vapidness of it all and disengage for good.
Hacker News is paginated, but effectively infinite, too. Though I guess that's enough of a UI friction to make a difference?
How is it not global scale? Or do you mean it only target a specific slice of your life (even if it makes not much of a difference where on the globe you are)?
Run one wireguard server in your home and one client instance on this router and now all of your devices can share the same residential VPN connection. No fraud blocks or extra verifications from your banking apps, no million suspicious login detected from all your social accounts, use your home netflix account, etc. All without your individual devices running a VPN app.
> Run one wireguard server in your home and one client instance on this router and now all of your devices can share the same residential VPN connection.
You don't need a "travel router" for this. My phone is permanently connected to my server via Wireguard (so that I can access my files from anywhere). Adding another device just requires adding a peer in the server's config file and can be accomplished very quickly. It's not clear what problem the travel router solves, unless perhaps you travel with dozens of devices.
> no million suspicious login detected from all your social accounts,
Why do you need to config wireguard on each device? Connect your phone to your vpn and share the wifi. Works on my android. Struggling to see the value proposition for this device.
Do you have a pixel? On Samsung you cannot share WiFi, Hotspot only works with mobile connections. I learners above that this is possible with pixel phones, makes me want to get one...
Yes, Pixels can definitely do that (I use Graphene). It’s incredible that iPhones are so expensive and yet so limited (can’t share WiFi, terrible file browser…)
Your comment explains why we want a travel router. I have a wire guard setup for my servers.
I'm entirely comfortable with setting that up.
But I value my time enough that I don't want the hassle of that for the various devices my family uses when I can just preconfigure and plug in a tiny device and not have them depend on me being in the same location all the time.
> Adding another device just requires adding a peer in the server's config file and can be accomplished very quickly
Do you need a client to be running on each device?
Even regardless "I just need to edit a config file real quick" is... Way more work than I want to do. Works for someone on hn but I'm imagining trying to show my dad how to do that.
They're suggesting just running off your data plan which works for domestic travel (at least to urban areas with good cell service) and can work for international if you go through getting a data eSim.
chromecast - godsend on long hotel stays. need to dial in through my home (wireguard) so no license issues with streamers and once I connect my GL.iNet GL-MT300N-V2 to hotel wifi instant bubble of safe wifi for all my devices! weighs nothing, been using for 8 years rock solid.
By removing the defense of plausible deniability for administrators, just like bodycams do for cops and dash cams do for bad drivers.
It should be legally required for daycares to have cameras. Those kids cannot communicate, so there is zero accountability there. And this only becomes a thing because it’s so incredibly cheap to add the accountability.
Obviously, in before times, when it was too expensive, a cost benefit decision has to be made to go with trust only. But now that the cost is trivial, that cost benefit decision has to be revisited.
The post you are responding to is about punishing the victim because teachers are too lazy/cowards to punish the culprits. Cams incentivize them to do the right thing.
Even if the situations are noticed and seen fully, does it cause the schools to not punish the victim? The stories I've heard about zero tolerance policies were that _even when the situation was fully obvious_, victims got punished because they took part in an altercation.
The video evidence is just one piece of the puzzle that is needed to help administrators properly adjudicate conflicts, and to help the public hold the administrators accountable.
If the rot is so deep that even who was right and who was wrong does not matter, then that is a separate issue that members of the public need to sort out with each other.
I'm not sure about that. Maybe? But... Firstly, there are surprisingly many people who are insanely patriotic so would volunteer anyway (perhaps fewer than in the past but perhaps still enough; see point three). Secondly, there are surprisingly many people who enjoy violence and killing people so would volunteer anyway (this probably hasn't changed). Thirdly, modern warfare doesn't need large numbers of people (this has definitely changed over time). And fourthly, a lot of modern people rather object to being ordered around by the government (I think this has probably increased a bit, at least; I can imagine that there are even people who would volunteer for military service when it's optional but would resist being conscripted).
In fact I cant disagree with most of what you've said, except to say that I was thinking from the state perspective, rather than the cannon-fodder.
Conscription has never been popular, and I think today in healthy industrialised nations it would be an exceptionally hard sell. Ukraine, Russia and (somewhat) Israel give us hints here of what might happen if the US or Germany or India started drafting all able-bodied young men.
It would be a disaster, but my guess is that it wouldn't stop governments from trying.
