> You could just as easily describe someone with bootstrapping experience as being like an FAA crash investigator who investigates take offs.
Takeoff systems aren't analogous to prototype development. I don't know you'd build a prototype plane that's feasible to take to market, without having deep knowledge about how planes are built.
Early design decisions matter. And you don't get to that realisation without dealing with legacy systems where some upstart made terrible decisions that you're now responsible for.
> I think the blame more rests on Apple for falsely representing the quality of their product
There was plenty of other concerning stuff in that article. And from a quick read it wasn't suggested or implied the VO2 max issue was the deciding factor for the original F score the author received. The article did suggest many times over the ChatGPT is really not equipped for the task of health diagnosis.
> There was another problem I discovered over time: When I tried asking the same heart longevity-grade question again, suddenly my score went up to a C. I asked again and again, watching the score swing between an F and a B.
The lack of self-consistency does seem like a sign of a deeper issue with reliability. In most fields of machine learning robustness to noise is something you need to "bake in" (often through data augmentation using knowledge of the domain) rather than get for free in training.
> There was plenty of other concerning stuff in that article.
Yeah for sure, I probably didn't make it clear enough but I do fault OpenAI for this as much as or maybe more than Apple. I didn't think that needed to be stressed since the article is already blasting them for it and I don't disagree with most of that criticism of OpenAI.
Tbf, and in support of your broader point, there's no reading between the lines, because genuine intent is indistinguishable from deception with this kind of stuff, because the latter imitates the former. There's only expecting the worst, and being only occasionally wrong.
With Show HN vs a regular submission you're shoved on shownew, which gets a lot less eyeballs than new. If you get enough votes, you're supposedly moved from shownew to top stories, but somehow 5 votes wasn't enough for me (though I saw other posts that got there with just 2). I'd like to see someone attempt to persuade me otherwise, but I really don't see the value in using the Show HN: prefix.
> With Show HN vs a regular submission you're shoved on shownew, which gets a lot less eyeballs than new
I don't think that's right, it's visible in both places, it's not "either or". Currently /new shows 5 "Show HN"s, which are also visible on /shownew.
> but I really don't see the value in using the Show HN: prefix.
You get a lot more traffic over a longer period of time, but best of all, the users who engage with you are in a different mindset for the "Show HN" posts.
On a normal submission, you get a whole range of top-level posts that are mostly tangible related to the topic at hand. It's basically a free-for-all, as long as it's at least a bit related to the submission's theme and topic.
On "Show HN" posts you get users who view it and comment about it as a way of providing feedback what they think of the idea itself, and its implementation. Completely different mood and input, that is much more about what you're actually sharing, than a submission.
Yeah I corrected myself in another comment. But I find with submissions to `shownew` they don't enter `top` straight away, or at all.
> You get a lot more traffic over a longer period of time
With a regular submission, it gets on `top` for at least a short period of time as well as `new`, whereas that doesn't seem to always be the case for a Show HN. And certainly not in my case. That said, many Show HNs do make it to top with less votes than the tiny few I got organically, so maybe I tripped some HN's filters? Or maybe it was bad timing? But if I post again, it'll be without the Show HN.
The long trail of visits for Show HNs come because they stay on /show a lot longer than it'd stay on the frontpage. So while it can be featured on the frontpage for an hour or two, that same submission could stay 2-3 days on the Show HN frontpage, even as it dropped of from the actual frontpage.
I think the frontpage is both a lot harder to get into, faster to get dropped from there, but obviously also has a lot more traffic. But the traffic from Show HN frontpage seems to engage more (again probably because of the mindset) and it stays there for a lot longer.
Personally, when I want feedback about the idea and implementation, I'd go for Show HN, because you're out after comments and discussions then, not just traffic and views. But if traffic/views are what you care about, regular submission would do "better".
> But if traffic/views are what you care about, regular submission would do "better".
Traffic and views can lead to comments and discussion. I was definitely looking for feedback. I think there's a minimum threshold of interest that's required before people start engaging. But it could also be that my submission was super boring, or there was something else off-putting about it – I'd be surprised if it was the latter, because the HN audience isn't known for holding back on criticism.
I do personally check out shownew quite often, yet I would never really visit new. I might not be a typical user, but I think I am a lot more likely to engage with a shownew post than someone who comes across it on new.
It's a bit like ProductHunt. The only people that look at ProductHunt, are the people that post on ProductHunt—or at least that's its reputation. Though that's an unfair comparison, because I think on HN there is actually genuine engagement by other builders (or perhaps I'm mistaken about PH).
Not quite as bad, but I do think the ShowHN posts suffer a form of the same issue where most posts seem to get very little attention and the little there is, probably comes from other people who post to it, rather than receiving the attention of the wider community (which, at least HN has).
I might have been mistaken, I think if you post to Show HN, it puts you on both shownew and new. I think in my case I saw Show HNs with less points and engagement on the top list, and somehow mine never appeared and I wonder if maybe there's some cherry picking there.
The other flaw of the study is that it doesn't compare populations with no social media, to the ones with.^ Just because you're not on social media, doesn't mean you're not affected, specifically where bullying is involved. You might switch off social media because of this, but have worse mental health outcomes.
^ No-one can do this kind of comparison anymore because no such population really exists, save for the Amish and extant hunter-gatherers who would have plenty of other confounders contributing their mental health measures. However the upward trend in suicide since the late 2000s pretty well correlates with smartphone usage. As does the drop in fertility rates (which are now showing to not necessarily correlate with the oft-cited suspects like wealth, female educational attainment, etc.)
The options are a) they have to decide between starving their family or continuing compromise their morals and increasing the capabilities of immoral company X, or b) a more ethically aligned company removes them from the resource pool of immoral company X. Which world do you prefer?
You're missing my point. If all 'ethical' companies treat all ex-employees of 'unethical companies' as unemployable, they are effectively only going to work at 'unethical companies' regardless of whatever mindset has shifted over time.
I agree they shouldn't become outcasts, but it feels disingenuous to say that the reason for wanting to work for palantir is anything but "they wanted A LOT of money".
It's kind of beside the point. You could argue the change of mind/heart is unlikely, but if indeed they had changed, it would be better to encourage that. Perhaps they were lured by the money, or perhaps some jingoistic impulse, but then the reality of what the company was doing became clearer? Or their world view evolved?
That said, if some ex-Palantir worker was somehow working for UNICEF – to take an extreme example – it would be a little awkward unless they had denounced their old company in a fairly public manner.
But for economics. Renewables are simply the cheapest option for generation.
For reduced land use, and hence reduced impacts (overall) on the environment and agriculture, nuclear wins hands down. But decades-long lead times, radioactive waste disposal, encumbering safety regulations, water supply etc. etc. etc. are problems you don't have with renewables.
Pretty major point of difference though isn't it? They claim this will be out there in Q1 2026, giving a chance for sceptics and industry professionals to tear it down. If this is really the long con, they'd at least give a little time for the cheques to clear before their wild claims could be assessed?
The other possibility is that they have very little moat with this new battery tech, because it's so easy to manufacture. Being the first mover might be their only play, and it's only a matter of time before someone else figures it out (or it leaks).
Takeoff systems aren't analogous to prototype development. I don't know you'd build a prototype plane that's feasible to take to market, without having deep knowledge about how planes are built.
Early design decisions matter. And you don't get to that realisation without dealing with legacy systems where some upstart made terrible decisions that you're now responsible for.
reply