There's also a second major benefit. Some amateur theory: There are two main advantages to wheels generally: A) Hold up your butt (support weight), and B) reduce friction with the ground, preserving momentum. Wheels move weight.
Walking A) puts weight on your legs, and B) is series of high-friction interactions with ground - on each step you would almost stop if you didn't expend energy to propel yourself forward to the next step (depending on how fast you're walking). You forward momentum is mostly wasted on each step.
Compare carrying something heavy walking and in a wheelbarrow: The wheelbarrow bears the weight and also uses forward momentum much more efficiently. The wheelbarrow was a high-impact innovation.
But the wheelbarrow still requires you to walk! So put your own butt in the wheelbarrow and using a crankshaft, pedals, and some gearing (and maybe a second wheel), propel your own weight forward too. Now you have a cargo bike. :)
? Which animals? Evolution requires orders of magnitude longer time spans. I doubt we're perceptibly different (in any genetic sense) than Homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago. I'm not sure the change from that point is perceptible.
> Jesus Freaks
That people accept that language on HN would seem to tell us a lot about the population here.
There are many well documented cases of rapid evolution: a population of African elephants became 50% tuskless at birth in a single generation, urban fox anatomy diverged from rural, frogs in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone turned black, the Peppered Moth turned black in the industrial revolution.
If you're around various ethnic groups long enough, you'll start recognizing which group a person you are unacquainted with belongs to. And I don't mean the obvious differences.
Sort of like "My Fair Lady" where the linguist could tell where a person came from by the way they spoke.
There's a whole industry of cat breeders going from wild cat servals to domesticated house cat, giving them an F number for how many generations they've been bred away from wild cat.
When will the public figure out that many IT exploits are the result of malpractice by developers and network adminstrators, and the businesses employing them? We're building and operating bridges that we know will collapse. Our products are nearly indefensible, literally - they can't realistically be secured except at great expense. We talk about the imbalance between costs of attack and defense; we made that imbalance.
The big LLM security threat is arguably just a revelation of the sh-ty work our field has accepted. Maybe we need to become actual engineers and invest in building proper, reliable, safe systems (which includes not being a dangerous risk for fraud, surveillance, and addiction). The 'anything goes' extreme disruption of many current SV corporate leaders and their technology is, in a way, a culmination of what they've always done.
The good news is that LLMs used properly might make proper engineering less expensive. The LLMs will more likely be used to make sh-t cheaper, so we can make more of it. Unless of course we take action.
This argument matches a HN (and IT world) idea that the law is algorithmic or autistic. If Italy's government wanted to enforce that law, I'm sure they could.
If the law banned selling beer without a license, you can't sell a pen for $20 and include a free six pack, claiming 'I'm just selling pens!'. Regulatory agencies, prosecutors, and judges aren't idiots, and neither is your lawyer.
> 0°F and 100°F are kind of the top and bottom of the temperature range I’m going to be experiencing and anything outside that is waaay too hot or cold.
Food, saunas, the weather, a fever, and much more are often over 100F.
Is it really that hard for people to stop doom scrolling or to stop inhaling or drinking dangerous chemicals?
They aren't selling these foods and coincidentally they are addictive. They have chosen the most addictive foods to sell - that's what makes them the most money. It turns out prune juice doesn't sell as well as soda, so that guy got fired.
How do they externalize the cost? Who is paying them? The plaintiff class-action firm pays their own costs and hopes get reimbursed when the case is resolved.
Those costs are relatively minimal, courts do charge fees (though I don't know how well that covers the court's expenses), and few class action suits go to trial - they are settled or dismissed beforehand.
Personally, I had to spend almost a week sitting in a jury pool at the courthouse. I lost about $1k in pay which was rather significant for me at the time. The lawyers did end up settling out of court though, and made $xx millions. So I guess it was all worth it in the end...
Class-action suits require the law firm owners (partners) to pay teams of attorneys, as well as experts, and others for years. I saw one firm rent an office and hire dozens of attorneys just to review the tens of millions of pages of documents, looking for evidence. The firm earns nothing unless and until a positive resolution. Some firms require financing to cover the cost.
Who is going to put all that on the line - not to mention their career and reputation - for a dubious case?
When the resolution comes - usually a settlement - they might not profit or not much for their years of investment and effort. If they pursue a 'dubious' case, they could lose everything - courts can even sanction them.
Targets of class action suits don't like them, of course, and try to denigrate the attorneys. What else will deter and get justice for some of the brazen fraud? The SEC? FTC? They don't have the resources or, depending on the administration, the mandate to enforce things across the entire country. Will you sue a corporation for even $10K? Try it.
There's also a second major benefit. Some amateur theory: There are two main advantages to wheels generally: A) Hold up your butt (support weight), and B) reduce friction with the ground, preserving momentum. Wheels move weight.
Walking A) puts weight on your legs, and B) is series of high-friction interactions with ground - on each step you would almost stop if you didn't expend energy to propel yourself forward to the next step (depending on how fast you're walking). You forward momentum is mostly wasted on each step.
Compare carrying something heavy walking and in a wheelbarrow: The wheelbarrow bears the weight and also uses forward momentum much more efficiently. The wheelbarrow was a high-impact innovation.
But the wheelbarrow still requires you to walk! So put your own butt in the wheelbarrow and using a crankshaft, pedals, and some gearing (and maybe a second wheel), propel your own weight forward too. Now you have a cargo bike. :)
reply