Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more whtsthmttrmn's comments login

> I'm not saying people can't like what they like, or spend money on what they want

Proceeds to tell people can't like what they like and what to spend their money on...

> Just having a bunch of money and plunking it down on a Lambo, without knowing how to work on it yourself? just seems stupid.

Why? Think of all the money you've spent on food you didn't grow or cook yourself, water you didn't treat yourself (unless you live entirely off the land yourself, in which case, bravo).

> Why buy an uncomfortable mid engine sports car that you can barely see out of, can't get a blowjob in, will definitely get speeding tickets in, probably wreck, and possibly get killed in or worse, kill somebody else in?

Tons of assumptions here, a couple of which can be applied to any vehicle.

> buy a comfortable car, it will have plenty of power. That exoticar is not you, you're pretending, just like a hollywood or hedgefund douche. Yes, you can do it, just sayin, don't.

Big ole yikes here. Step away from the keyboard for a few hours and chill.

> You want to race? ok, go all in. Sadly, you'll probably never catch up with real racers, like Michael Jordan never did much on the baseball field, but at least you can be authentic doing that and not just a celeb poseur, push pedal, go fast, in places where you're not safe for other people.

Glad you've deemed yourself the authority on what makes a "real racer" and who is "authentic".

You sound bitter over people with money spending it on luxuries.


Why so bitter? Any source on that 90%?



> Your comment doesn't just suggest you are mistaken about this or that, but that you aren't in a frame of mind where you could recognize or appreciate that there is a problem.

Popping in here to say that it's funny how you said this then go on about baby sacrifice.


It's because they have to assume it's real. Same reason behind weather warnings. They can't know for sure if it's real, but it's 'better' to assume it's real and respond accordingly only to discover it's a hoax, than it is to assume it's a prank and show up unprepared only to have it be real and they aren't ready to handle it. It's Schrodinger's hostage.


Are you US-based?


US based, at UCB in the 80s, didn’t recognize it.


> but the things it'll put inside and give you the right instructions for cooking are new

And you know this for certain, how? So because it can suggest a few weird dishes it has a higher intelligence than most humans? Someone call Better Housekeeping.


> However, I think it's pretty safe to say that the modern slate of LLMs fall into the top 10% of human intelligence, simply for their breath of knowledge and ability to synthesize ideas at the cross-section of any wide number of fields.

How many LLMs have created companies entirely on their own? Or do anything unprompted, for that matter? You can go on about it but the fact that they require human interaction means the intelligence comes from the human using them, not the LLM itself. Tools are not intelligent.


Conflating will with intelligence.


Complaining about big egos then come back with that reply...interesting approach.


Sounds like something a crypto-fraudster would say...


Forgive my ignorance, but is the difference because a burial FOR a dog implies some meaningful significance since the focus is on the pet, whereas being buried WITH the dogs is just a way for the dogs to be sent to the afterlife with the deceased (and the focus isn't on them, they're just along for the ride)?


Yes. The one is focused on the pet, elevating it to the same level of respect and dignity as funeral rites for people.

The other is not - it could be respectful (I loved my pet please bury them by me) or not (bury my jewels and slaves with me) but it still isn't the raising of the pet status to that of your own species.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: