This reminds me of a story of Diogenes the Cynic [1], who embraced minimalism to the point that he slept in a large wine jar and owned only a few simple possessions, such as his tunic and a drinking bowl. One day, he saw a boy drinking water from a trough by cupping his hands and bringing it to his mouth, so Diogenes threw away his drinking bowl and stated that the boy had found true minimalism because "nature had already provided him with a cup."
I see the Playdate as further from a Louis Vuitton bag and closer to hockey gear you might buy to partake in an amateur adult league.
It's not practical in the terms that you can use it to plow fields and feed your family, but it's also not entirely a status symbol. The money spent allows you to participate in an activity you enjoy that may or may not have a social aspect.
This is one example from a source I just happened to read this morning, which is otherwise pretty positive about the prediction markets.
> Beyond fears about bad actors attempting to distort the markets for profit, some political operatives say the sites rarely deliver political forecasts that are different from traditional polling.
> For instance, polls during Wisconsin's gubernatorial primary showed Democrat David Crowley lagging other candidates by wide margins. Kalshi similarly projected Crowley as a long-shot candidate — but Crowley landed a surprise win.
> "It appears that there really aren't any predictions here, they're just reacting belatedly to public information, like polls and news stories," said Eddie Vale, a Democratic strategist in Washington who worked on Crowley's campaign. "If it was just a fun entertainment tool for political junkies, fine, but to me, all of this is a marketing sheen for an online gambling operation."
So it's not really that they provide bad predictions, it's more that they don't offer anything new. Except, of course, in the case when someone is using insider information in an attempt to profit. All this while also having the downsides of skimming money off every transaction and encouraging gambling habits.
I don't think HN commenters need to be the arbiters of which books are beneficial to society.
And beyond just benefit to society, don't forget how subjective the decision about what constitutes a "unique artifact" is. That random product manual from 1966 becomes a near-priceless relic to me if it lets me repair and use the sewing machine handed down from my grandmother. Not necessarily the ink printed on paper, but the information contained within.
The above is based on a true story involving archive.org's Manual Library. The idea that even such esoteric and forgotten information would get hoovered up into the walled garden of Amazon's AI and then destroyed in the outside world, such that I have to go pay them to access even a facsimile of it, is frankly disgusting.
>That random product manual from 1966 becomes a near-priceless relic to me if it lets me repair and use the sewing machine handed down from my grandmother. Not necessarily the ink printed on paper, but the information contained within.
On the other hand, now that the manual is in the AI, you can just ask the AI how to repair the sewing machine.
The information contained within has not been lost, and in fact has become much more accessible.
> you can just ask the AI how to repair the sewing machine
Like so often in its usage, the word "just" is carrying immense weight in this sentence. Please see "hoovered up into the walled garden of Amazon's AI [...] such that I have to go pay them to access even a facsimile of it"
> has become much more accessible
This accessibility rests on a number of assumptions, not the least of which is Amazon's (of all companies) charitable good graces in offering access to their AI at an affordable price. It also assumes that the model can accurately regurgitate the text without hallucinating about other, similar machines, and that it can faithfully recreate any diagrams.
> That random product manual from 1966 becomes a near-priceless relic to me if it lets me repair and use the sewing machine handed down from my grandmother.
That ain’t a rare book.
I would also be shocked if you couldn’t find a way to repair and use this 1966 sewing machine… so it seems like a red herring.
Thanks for your opinion. I see you disagree with my first point.
> I would also be shocked if you couldn’t find a way to repair and use this 1966 sewing machine… so it seems like a red herring.
"Repair of the sewing machine is obviously simple and thus left as an exercise to the reader."
Seriously, though, I'm trying to say that you can't make that call for me. You can think that, but I know from experience repairing old machines (with more or less sentimental value) that having the original manual can be the difference between fixing it and irreparably damaging it. I could also, in turn, suppose that you probably do not actually collect and preserve rare "unique artifact" books, and therefore your argument about them is a red herring. But then we would both just be casting aspersions.
This is mentioned in the article when discussing a player that found the optimum route:
> Sarah also did something that appeared a bit unnatural. Instead of simply continuing straight a few times, she intuitively and preemptively turned in a snake-like pattern. This highlighted a key difference between real-life mowing and our simplified game, an approach that strong mowers exploited. Sarah, an avid gamer, seemed to recognize this strategy immediately.
The thing is, one needs to consider more than efficiency, but the overall health and appearance of the lawn --- as noted on _Magnum PI_, it is necessary to vary the cutting so that the lawn does not develop a "grain" where it lays unevenly.
I agree that this is not an apocalyptic moment for the protocol. And I support what Blacksky is doing, so I kind of hate that this will probably be the only thing I get to say to you.
But the argument that established, profitable organizations in the atproto space have no qualms with this move is not as reassuring as you might think.
I would not be surprised based on the post that the trademark will be given to some sort of non-profit foundation. The post itself made it seem pretty clear that the current reasons to have the PBC acquire it were:
1. An adversary attempting to do so in order to extract money (rent seeking).
2. There was less legal and financial overhead in doing so via the PBC.
While not everything BlueSky has done has been stellar, and there have been missteps, I think they’ve generally been exceptional stewards of atproto and the ecosystem. As a result, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt they will stand by their word.
FWIW— shithead trolls doing things like acquiring copyrights to extract “rents” are exactly why every org I’ve ever worked for pays lawyers for bullshit copyright and patent applications. It’s not because they’re valid, it’s because it’s cheaper to do so upfront, than fight to disprove someone else own’s them later.
Yeah, that closing message was a little weird to me. I understand framing the article as "not anti-AI", especially if the author uses and enjoys the tools. But the end sounds like a call to blindly adopt the tools and figure out the justification later.
I'm just coming across this discussion now, but I did a little research that I can add to possibly explain the difference between the advertised capacity and the perceived capacity.
The 4400 number is based on a capacity test that the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority performed[1] to certify the Vegas Loop met its contractual requirements, which was 4400 riders per hour. The test was performed with "about 300 people", so results were extrapolated to reach the final number. The LVCVA didn't publish any further information about their methodology, so we can't really comment for sure on how realistic their conclusions might be.
However, a few months after the tunnel opened, there was some criticism[2] saying, "the highest hourly passenger rate hit thus far is 1,355 passengers per hour." It also notied that the ride took 4 minutes instead of the 2-minute goal. A spokesperson from the LVCVA responded:
> “The ride itself does in fact take two minutes,” Nelson-Kraft said. “What wasn’t taken into account are other factors of the Loop experience, like passengers load in and load out time. [...]"
Given that the LVCVA conducted the original capacity "stress test", I think it would be reasonable to guess that they tested only how many passengers can be pushed through the 12-foot-wide tunnel and did not consider loading and unloading as part of overall rates.
The LVCVA is a public authority and the Loop contract had substantial penalties in place, about 30% of the total ~$50 mil amount, tied to various tiers of service the system needed to hit. So right off the bat not only do you have good financial incentives for a good process, but strong legal risk and public scrutiny if things go bad. While the test was not public (for these very reasons), it was attended by auditors from BDO LLP - LVCVA's long standing auditor (and not one hired for the occasion by BoringCo).
The accounting company affirmed the test results, CFO Ed Finger told the board that the auditors observed 157 unique rides and there were no negative findings. These are all public records and board minutes anyone can request and consult.
Essentially, according to what was reported in the media, they had the few hundred volunteers board packed Teslas (3 pax + driver), ride the system, disembark and take another ride, while remaining within the station limits.
I wouldn't call the 4400pphpd result an "extrapolation" - it's a real, instantaneous capacity number once the system reaches steady state, just like you don't have to drive for an entire hour to express your speed in km/h or mi/h.
The figure is of course not indicative for the real rush hour capacity of the station infrastructure, especially the underground stations that have escalators etc., when they are packed with disoriented tourists carrying luggage and not necessarily making an effort to move fast and hit good numbers.
Hence, I think my original point stands firm, Boring has demonstrated vehicle rates that can beat light rail, the basic premise of cheap narrow tunnels is sound. To actually demonstrate competitive numbers in real life scenarios will require larger vehicles, better organized ingress flows and procedures, more and perhaps larger stations etc. But these are all tweakable factors depending on actual demand at a specific station, they can run a mix of vehicles and expand infra where it makes financial sense, but only IF the tunnels have good vehicle rates, ie. no more than seconds of headway with extraordinarily rare in-tunnel break downs.
There are some methodology gaps in that 1300 riders number as well. The four minute ride sounds like it assumes ideal availability of cars at the end of the loop segments. If the cars aren't evenly distributed, you won't be able to maintain optimal throughput for an hour.
I was once in a hackerspace that held regular "show and tell" nights for people to present interesting technology projects. We eventually hit a rash of non-regulars bringing in "projects" that were essentially sales-pitches for devices sold through multi-level marketing scams. Figuring out how to ban those without blocking someone who intended to monetize their projects was tricky.
Point being: just because a thing technically fits the genre does not mean it is something that the audience wants to listen to.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes#Asceticism