Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | motbus3's commentslogin

This is 0.005 of what musk allegedly have ? He might be sad

As a foreigner, I approve the increase of taxes in US.

It would fix most of my country economy that needs to pay food in USD


Just before Christmas? I doubt it

From the country where guns are sold? I don't get it. What is the point? Not even being ironic. I don't understand the point.

If you tell me that this can make an untracked weapon, I will tell you that probably an untracked weapon can be done with anything, and surprise surprise, even without 3d printed parts.

Imagine the amount of false positives and inquiries on unprovable things. Soon this will also be used for copyright or whatever, and that will be the sole purpose


> Not even being ironic. I don't understand the point

Because there is a significant part of the country that would love to ban guns completely but they currently don't, and perhaps won't ever, have quite enough support to make a change to the constitution to allow them to. In the absence of that, and given they do have plenty of support to create local law many places, the strategy seems to have become to create a regulatory regime that technically still allows guns while making it as impractical as possible for anyone to actually do so.


> Because there is a significant part of the country that would love to ban guns completely but they currently don't, and perhaps won't ever, have quite enough support to make a change to the constitution to allow them to.

Ban guns, or regulate them, and their owners?


> Ban guns, or regulate them, and their owners?

Both, though I don't know the breakdown. I'm confident saying there's absolutely some people who seem to see onerous regulation as a path to a de facto ban, though.

I'd be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to those pushing regulations if the regulations themselves seemed well thought out and drafted rather than leaning on kneejerk "guns bad, rules good" reactions from voters to get passed. Unfortunately the actual situation seems to be that left-leaning areas where it's easy to push anti-gun law lean farther and farther into restricting both first and second amendment rights without meaningful impact, while the right-leaning areas that actually could use some additional regulation over the perhaps overly lax federal level laws can't or won't do anything.


Can you be more specific?

If this is a real litigation process, I wonder what would be the conditions Meta will need to accept for them to let it go.

That's should be illegal. They used the excuse it was there to take or just burnt evidence literally of pirated books.

What they are doing is implicitly changing the contract of usage of their services.


Edit: This ended up being such a big text. Sorry.

I guess I agree but I want to add to your point is that, this tech is inexpensive.

And unfortunately, not in the sense where it is related to the real value of a product or need for it, but as a market condition.

But, to me, it seems that it will be more expensive anyway.

I see these possibilities: 1. Few companies own all the technology. They cut the men in the middle and they have all kinds of super apps and will try to force into that ecosystem

2. Or, they succeeded in the substitution, they keep the man in the middle but they control whom will have access and how much it is going to be charged. The goal in this case will be to be more expensive to kickstart an engineering team than using the product and ofc, their goal will be to reach that threshold.

3. They completely fail, these businesses plateau'ed and they can't make it a better condition to subvert the current balance and take the market. This could happen if a big financial risk materialize or if they get stuck without big advancements for a long time and investors starts to demand their money back.

I think we are going this 3rd route. We are seeing early signals of nonsense marketing strategy selling things that are not there yet. We see all of them silencing ethics and transparency teams. The truth is that they started to stack models together and sell as one thing which is much different from what they sold just a year and a half ago. I am not saying this couldn't be because this is really the best model, but because they couldn't scale it up even more now, even 18 months after the previous gen of giant model releases.

The truth is that they probably need to start capitalising now because the crisis they are causing themselves might hurt them bad.

We saw this decline or every bubble popping. They need to sell it too much so they can shift the risk from being on top of their money to be on top of someone else's money, and this potential is resold multiple times as investors realise the improvements are not coming. Until there is only the speculators dealing with this sorta of business, which will ultimately make those companies to take unpopular stupid decisions like it happened with bitcoin, super hero movies, NFT and maybe much more if I could think about it.


Can it spit out harry potter 100% already without saying it pirated the book?

They are eliminating competition as they are doing elsewhere

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: