Wow that's lovely. Wish we could do that on HN for a bit.
(Yes, I know, I can install an extension or something to hide LLM/AI submissions. I don't want to, and that's not the same thing, and won't have the same effect.)
I use LLMs, I think they are useful, but oh my sweet jesus I am so tired of reading and hearing about them everywhere.
As others have stated, no, this isn't a simulation of WeatherStar. It does, however, look exactly like the weather channel did when I was a kid. (New Jersey and Maryland, in the 80s and 90s)
If someone is already sold on the idea of uninstalling the Instagram app and using something else to access Instagram, how is it better to install a different app, vs. using the already-installed browser, with an extension?
The amount of my taxes that went toward people flying on this trip is so small to be not worth considering.
I'm much more concerned about my tax dollars going toward the US military, especially with Trump wanting another $200B so he can murder more people in Iran while making the world and the US measurably less safe.
What does it do? All it did for me was disable all input into the page except for scrolling. I was assuming some modem noises or perhaps the page would unload and reload very very very slowly...
Works on Android. Trying it on regular Firefox on Pinephone Pro results in:
> This page is slowing down Firefox. To speed up your browser, stop this page.
Weirdly, the image animation doesn't render until I hit the "Debug Script" button that Firefox presents, which pauses execution. It's only with the JS paused that the animation begins.
The pause is at the `for (; b < a + 60; )` loop that works an OscillatorNode. I guess a sound is supposed to be played. I checked youtube and sound works. I guess this loop prevents the firing of whatever event the animation depends on.
Loop terminates. It's just really slow. Only once it ends does the sound happen (haven't used OscillatorNodes before; probably normal).
Checked for sound on Android's Chrome. There's none. Checked youtube on Android's Chrome, sound works. Checked Firefox on Android, seems to have the same problem as desktop Firefox on Pinephone Pro. No web inspector on Android to check, but I waited and eventually the sound started playing. It's been several minutes and it's still playing. Image animation hasn't started.
That assumes that war will "evolve" into drone vs. drone. I don't think it will. Sure, drones will be used more and more, but there will always be people involved, even if they are "merely" civilians who get caught in the crossfire.
Most wars aren't fought in completely uninhabited areas. Drones will always have people to kill, and their controllers will always aim them at people.
You can't assume what you want, the facts on the ground are clear, we are moving to drones, AI, robots. And the nations who don't move that direction will not have a chance to fight any war due to the asymmetry in the cost. It would be like fighting guns with arrows.
Regarding the second point, UAE had 2400 projectiles on them with 10 causalities. This is a war of economies, not aim for people. So your second point doesn't also hold on the ground given the current systems let alone the system 50 years from now.
I actually have zero believe in the rationality of the leaders, you only need to listen to one speech to see the irrationality.
However, systems don't care about people irrationality, it will force them to behave in certain ways. We are seeing things unfold in front of our eyes clearly pertaining to the global energy.
Iran blocked the world supply forcing the global empire to retreat, it does't matter what Trump wants, at the end of the day, he is left with a dichotomy, either to escalate and further risk the global economy or retreat, and he had no option but to choose the later. He understood that destroying the world economy will be the end of his presidency and legacy.
If the future is merely a war of economies and drones, my point is that it would be closer to a video games than wars of the past. And this is a good thing!
Regardless of whether or not anyone does or doesn't understand your point or position, you're being very obtuse about this.
There are many other possible scenarios that could play out, and disagreeing with the idea that "wars will turn into video games" doesn't mean someone is in favor of genocide.
That is how children argue; please hold yourself to a higher standard.
Also, if you put obviously incorrect information in the same comment (which you absolutely did), you should expect to be downvoted.
> What you are doing is being hyper-pedantic. It is fucking tiresome when people do this online.
That's not pedantry. There's a huge difference between "they were unavailable and I couldn't get one at any price" and "I could have bought one from a scalper but I didn't trust them". Even if it's reasonable not to trust them (it is!), the first statement is sensational, and untrue, especially considering you emphasized "at any price" in your comment upthread.
> If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one".
That's what you should have said in the first place; that would have been honest and correct.
And please, there's no need to call the other poster names. That's uncalled-for and childish. You seem to be new here (9-day-old account), so please read the site guidelines and turn it down a notch or three.
> That's not pedantry. There's a huge difference between "they were simply unavailable and I couldn't get one at any price" and "I could have bought one from a scalper but I didn't trust them". Even if it's reasonable not to trust them (it is!), the first statement is sensational, and untrue, especially considering you emphasized "at any price" in your original comment.
It is for any normal person in relatively normal setting.
Only amongst technical people is this sort of discourse tolerated where someone pretends that an unreasonable option (the scalper in this case as you admitted yourself) should be included in a statement when it is perfectly obvious it should not be included because it is not in any way reasonable.
I could have flown to the US and bought a card or China. Is that reasonable? For most people it isn't reasonable. It wasn't for me. Buying from an untrustworthy seller, is unreasonable.
> the first statement is sensational, and untrue, especially considering you emphasized "at any price" in your original comment.
They were out of stock on every reputable site. Therefore I could not buy a card at any price from them because they didn't exist.
> That's what you should have said in the first place; that would have been honest and correct.
I was honest and correct to begin with. The poster was using prices and availability in the US and not the UK.
> And please, there's no need to call the other poster names.
I never called them names. I expressed my annoyance at their behaviour.
You are being a pendant as far as I am concerned and arguing semantics with me is not going to convince me and many others.
So I suggest in future you should learn that using this line of logic (where you expect me to do something unreasonable to a huge number of people) is not something that people are going to put up with. It is really annoying to have to converse in this manner and in fact I believe that often that is wholly disingenuous and I no longer wish to speak to you.
If I categorized these situations the way you do, and I said what I'm saying, I would be a pedant.
But I see things a different way. The logic I'm actually using is not pedantic.
You calling me disingenuous over this is painful to look at. Get out of your own head for a second. We're using different premises, and we're reaching different conclusions because of that. My logic is fine, and your logic is fine.
> If I categorized these situations the way you do, and I said what I'm saying, I would be a pedant.
I am not categorising any situation. The vast majority of people would omit unreasonable options.
I could buy a racing bike that is £5000 new, for £200 when I live in London (back in 2000s). The bike would most likely would have been stolen. So technically I can buy a £5000 bike for £200. But most people wouldn't want to buy from a thief and consider it unethical.
People feel similarly about scalpers and other untrustworthy sellers.
> You calling me disingenuous over this is painful to look at. Get out of your own head for a second.
You started the conversation claiming I was outright lying. Then when I clarified to you what I meant you continued claiming I was lying/misstating. That is really annoying.
If you could have just said "okay that is fair, while you might have been doing X and Y, I can understand why you didn't want to do that". That would have been fine. But that didn't happen.
> You started the conversation claiming I was outright lying. Then when I clarified to you what I meant you continued claiming I was lying/misstating. That is really annoying.
I said "If you were offering anywhere near 6x MSRP" I didn't believe you, and it turns out you weren't offering 6x MSRP. So I wasn't calling you a liar.
> If you could have just said "okay that is fair, while you might have been doing X and Y, I can understand why you didn't want to do that". That would have been fine. But that didn't happen.
So if I had explicitly said "I think it's fine you didn't use ebay" that would have fixed everything? Because I never argued about your personal choice, I argued about you calling ebay "unreasonable".
Well for the record, I was going to say something like that in response to "If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one"."
But then I saw you had called me "hyper-pedantic" and I focused on rebuffing that attack instead.
Edit: And it doesn't help that you never actually did that modification, and instead keep insisting that what you originally said means the same thing.
> So if I had explicitly said "I think it's fine you didn't use ebay" that would have fixed everything? Because I never argued about your personal choice, I argued about you calling ebay "unreasonable".
Ebay in itself isn't unreasonable.
Ebay is unreasonable when the only sellers are untrustworthy sellers, when there was a bunch of scams at the time. Which there were.
I've clarified this many times now. I don't care what interpretation is now of what I said.
> Well for the record, I was going to say something like that in response to "If you are going to be a smart arse, I will modify my statement to say "I could not get a card from a reputable online store as they were all out of stock and did not wish to risk buying from a less reputable one"."
I don't believe you. I've had plenty of stupid conversations like this, with plenty of tech nerds. Rarely happens with non-tech people. I spend some time in non-tech hobby spaces that are technical (Classic Car / Bike repairs) and this convo style never happens.
People like yourself think you are being clever buy poking holes in everything that said. I am quite happy to be quite obnoxious in pointing this out. I am tired of it. I am this cantankerous IRL about this btw.
The fact is that you could not buy a new graphics card in the UK for some time during COVID via almost every online retailers. I had conversations with other people in the UK that wanted to buy PC hardware and they were in the same situation. The same was true for the Pi 4 at the time. Making stupid semantic arguments doesn't change that fact.
> Edit: And it doesn't help that you never actually did that modification, and instead keep insisting that what you originally said means the same thing.
For all intents and purposes it is the same thing if you aren't engaging in pedantry and semantics. I try not to engage in it anymore (unless it is tit for tat), because I understand it pisses people off. You obviously don't care.
I like these many posts about how you, specifically, chose not to use any of the available systems to get a GPU that rapidly organized and became common globally during lockdown. The line from “I just didn’t feel like doing something once” through to “My predictions for the future about a different problem are obviously true” is clear as day. Can’t see why anyone would disagree
> I like these many posts about how you, specifically, chose not to use any of the available systems to get a GPU that rapidly organized and became common globally during lockdown.
You like the other people are was arguing with are pretending that the options were reasonable. They weren't at the time. Many other people I know thought the same.
There was no stock for any GPU except for absolute crap on any of the retail sites in the UK. There are not many options in the UK generally. It is not like the US.
As far as I am concerned what you are engaging is effectively gas-lighting.
> The line from “I just didn’t feel like doing something once” through to “My predictions for the future about a different problem are obviously true” is clear as day. Can’t see why anyone would disagree
If you deliberately want to misunderstand what is said you could draw that conclusion. Which is blatantly what you are doing.
The only thing I claimed about the current high price DRAM situation is:
1) It is likely to get worse before it gets better (due to supply chain issues due to current wars).
2) It resolve itself over time and you should be patient and just make your existing stuff last as long as possible.
That is how any crisis often plays out and I was actually telling people in my original statement not to be all doom and gloom and just be patient. It will sort itself out. It won't be this year for sure.
My favorite part would have to be where you can’t remember the actual, structurally crucial piece of information that your argument rests on and just said that you didn’t feel like getting a GPU off eBay.
>I've had problems with it before (I can't remember specifics as it was a while ago). I'd rather not going through the hassle and/or risk in the first place.
As your evidence that
> Doomers IMO are just click baiting.
Like you admitted that you _do not remember_ why it was entirely unreasonable or impossible and are arguing against people that do possess memory of it being possible and reasonable enough for them at the time. Amazing stuff.
> My favorite part would have to be where you can’t remember the actual, structurally crucial piece of information that your argument rests on and just said that you didn’t feel like getting a GPU off eBay.
You are misunderstanding what is being said. I suspect it is deliberate.
It is often said that "Prevention is often better than the cure". Similarly it is often better not to risk spending your money unwisely than to have to go through processes to recover your money. It matters not what the specifics of the situation was (it happened a decade or more ago)
I communicated that quite clearly. So you either didn't understand or you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said.
> Like you admitted that you _do not remember_ why it was entirely unreasonable or impossible and are arguing against people that do possess memory of it being possible and
reasonable enough for them at the time. Amazing stuff.
I bet you felt really clever constructing that. However as explained the specifics weren't the point. Avoiding the process entirely for funds recovery is the point.
I don’t know why you’re being so combative here. I said I liked your posts about vaguely feeling that a specific thing was probably worse during covid lockdown than everyone else remembers it and how that means that your are equipped to predict the impact of a completely different phenomenon on something else. I like these posts! Responding to “hmm this specific thing looks bad” with “alright I don’t actually remember what I’m basing this on but I saw a quote about economists that I think means it’s good and it feels like everyone that doesn’t vibe with me and my quote are wrong” is fantastic posting!
i would certainly consider "at any price" to mean that you'd be willing to pay the 5x price to 20 different scammers and still got no card.
there might be a cultural difference between the old world and new world for what "at any price" means, but id take it to mean that to be at least spending $1M for it
(Yes, I know, I can install an extension or something to hide LLM/AI submissions. I don't want to, and that's not the same thing, and won't have the same effect.)
I use LLMs, I think they are useful, but oh my sweet jesus I am so tired of reading and hearing about them everywhere.
reply