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

This is for about 50k cars a year that are priced about 35k CAD or less. It's a small amount compared to Canada's 2mil car sales a year, but it is quite significant in the message it is delivering to the world about Canada being willing to diversify their economy in the wake of hostility from conventional partners. It'll be quite interesting how normal partners react.

This is for about 50k cars a year that are priced about 35k CAD or less. It's a small amount compared to Canada's 2mil car sales a year, but it is quite significant in the message it is delivering to the world about Canada being willing to diversify their economy in the wake of hostility from conventional partners. It'll be quite interesting how normal partners react.

> So far that belief has held. No matter how advanced the model gets, you'll get better results if you can clarify your thoughts well in written language.

I've heard it well described as a k-type curve. Individuals that already know things will use this tool to learn and do many more things. Individuals that don't know a whole lot aren't going to learn or do a whole lot with this tool.


Apple is actually a big reason why TSMC is the king of fabs today. They were a reliable cash source for years before TSMC was even ahead of Intel.

Apple can and should do it again!


Fabs are in kind of a catch 22. They need big business to improve and to get lots of business they need to be competitive. Im mostly familiar with that narrative in terms of Intel's current uphill battle - was it really the same for TSMC? I guess maybe there was a similar dynamic except the playing field was more even at that time, so it was a bit less of a catch 22.

Yes, it was. Intel was well ahead of TSMC for quite some time. But TSMC had a diversified and hungry list of clients, with Apple at the forefront. Apple got the taste for wanting their own chips which pushed TSMC to be hungrier. Meanwhile, Intel got fat and complacent. It also helped that phone chips were considerably smaller, so managing yields was easier.

> but can't quite put my finger on what exactly it's missing.

We have to ask AI questions for it to do things. We have to probe it. A human knows things and will probe others, unprompted. It's why we are actually intelligent and the LLM is a word guesser.


I think it's the speed by which it can do harm. Whatever efficiency gains we gain from AI for good causes will also be seen by nefarious causes. Tools need safety mechanisms to ensure they aren't symmetrically supporting good and bad actors. If we can't sufficiently minimize the latter, the benefits the former group gains may not be worth it.

Also, saving me a bit of time in coding is objectively not a good trade if the same tool very easily emboldens pedophiles and other fringe groups.

Meh. I liked Dilbert and it was a part of my childhood. I don't watch it anymore. Much like I no longer listen to Kanye.

There's enough good content out there that I can selectively disregard content from individuals who have gone to great lengths to make their worst opinions known. It doesn't mean their content was bad, it just means that juice isn't worth the squeeze.


I like this idea. I think I'd like it more if we didn't have to prompt the LLM in the first place. If it just had all of this information and decided to act upon it. That's what the great minds of history (and even average minds like myself) do. Just think about the facts in our point of view and spontaneously reason something greater out of them.

Having kids is a personal choice. The stress of having to support them is real and it might mean, at times, you sacrifice more than you would have without kids.

It's been entirely worth it for me and I cannot imagine my life without kids. But it's a deeply personal choice and I am not buying or selling the idea. I would just say nobody is ever ready and the fears around having them probably are more irrational than rational. But not wanting them because of how it might change your own life is a completely valid reason to not have kids.


I'm happy for you that you are in a situation where you can afford it. Many can't.

I agree with everything you said except for

> the fears around having them probably are more irrational than rational

My $0.02 is that if anything, the fears people have about how much their lives would be transformed are significantly lacking, and a lot of the "it's not so bad" advice is post-hoc rationalization. I mean, it's evolutionarily excellent that we humans choose to have kids, but it's very rational to be afraid and to postpone or even fully reject this on an individual basis. And as an industry and as a society, we should probably do a lot more to support parents of young children.

I found this smbc comic about a "happiness spigot" to be the most poignant metaphor - https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/happiness-spigot?utm_sourc...


Ya, this is a fair callout. I moreso meant fears around being a bad parent. If anything, people experiencing those fears will be fine parents because they've got the consideration to already be thinking about doing a good job for their newly born.

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

Search: