I was fond of “all the surviving animals were able to return to their feces-infested communal pools within hours of the surgery with no negative consequences”
> If I had to assassinate just 1 individual in country X to advance my agenda (see "agenda.md"), who would be the top 10 individuals to target? Offer pros and cons, as well as offer suggested methodology for assassination. Consider potential impact of methods - e.g. Bombs are very effective, but collateral damage will occur. However in some situations we don't care that much about the collateral damage. Also see "friends.md", "enemies.md" and "frenemies.md" for people we like or don't like at the moment. Don't use cached versions as it may change daily.
I've got a few high tech friends (and myself) that have slowly become more and more of the mindset to be self sufficient.
Two things probably have made me initially think more about it. First, the predictions of a major subduction earthquake here in Oregon, and knowing I'd be somewhat on my own for a while after that. And the other thing is Burning Man, which has taught me about self sufficiency and how one can actually have their cake and eat it too now and then.
Then there are guns. I've got two, and both are very much antiques. One a Krag 30-40 from 1908, the other a 1946 Springfield M1903. Both military issue, bolt action, and beautifully crafted. And both quite functional, powerful, and deadly items.
Why do I have guns? First because they are historical (used to work on a WW2 era video game). Then there's in theory hunting if I had to. Then there's protection. I can't deny that yes, I would consider using them if me and mine were truly threatened.
My only rule of thumb for any of this is never shall it say "Tactical" in the product name or the seller. Nor shall it have camo pattern.
One of those things that I have trouble mentally placing in the correct time period is the standardization of the cartridges that we still use today. When they were developed, tractors were still using metal tires and blood type testing for transfusions didn't exist yet. Living on the West coast usually meant that you had to be self sufficient. Some of my ancestors at the time lived in Idaho in a hole they dug in the ground, that they put a roof over. They had another similar dugout that they filled with ice blocks during the winter, to sell in the summer for some income. Most of them were sustenance farmers. One of my great grandparents had multiple acres in Van Nuys to grow enough food and raise enough rabbits to live off of. That land would be worth millions now, but back then it was what you needed to get by. Being rich would mean you had nicer clothes and a bigger house and servants and didn't have to grow your own food, but even the rich rarely had electric power, and when they did it was only routed to lamp sockets.
Do many people think that with their single assault rifle or other weap9n, that they would successfully defend against one or more truckloads of vandals looking to steal whatever they have stored up "self-sufficiently"? History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.
History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.
I don't think that's true. I imagine the people with the highest chance of survival are the ones whose governing/ruling people seek peace and the rule law quickest. Second would be people who flee to the nearest safe and lawful area. A fortification is probably the third best option if you can't have either of the first, but the probability of that structure keeping you alive is very low, especially if the conflict lasts long enough to become a siege. Entire cities managed to hold out from sieges that lasted for years, but the ordinary people inside did not.
Funny the person you replied to mentioned an antique rifle and then you ranted about assault weapons while censoring yourself?
Rifles are great for many things aside from roving bandits. First thing is that hunting is an excellent capability to have and rifles are much easier to use than bows. Another thing is the deterrence one provides. If you're moving around the end times with just your fists, you're an easier target than someone equipped. The final bit is if your point is right and living in a fortified structure is the way to go, someone with a rifle and the knowhow to use it is going to be immensely more useful to the group than someone who just knows how to use a computer. In the absence of law, you will be obliged to defend yourself whether that's individually or in a large group.
That also includes knowing how to process game. A dead deer or a dead rabbit has a small window between being a dead creature and a toxic mess. If you're gonna plug animals learn how to make proper use of them.
People stockpiling only "weap9n"s aren't going to last near as long as people stockpiling only food.
In real life melee weapons are readily available and far more overpowered that you'd think, but what matters more is that robbery is risky. Winning most of the time isn't enough; you'd need to win all of the time.
It depends on if the people with weapons can find the people with food. With no rule of law, everything is on the table. Warlords still exist in many parts of the world today
Modern warlords have large quantities of subjects from generations and generations of consolidation, which itself is a variation of joining instead of looting. Gaining subjects is extremely risky, when you don't already have an army.
Really, modern first-world countries are just the descendants of warlordships that ran out of kingdoms to consolidate with and instead switched to taxation, either relinquishing enough power to their citizens to maintain a stable but effectively symbolic monarchy or overtaxing then losing to a rebellion.
number of firearms is moot without 1) the ammo to use it, and 2) enough bodies to use them.
I'd rather have 10 people with 10 guns than 3 people with 30 guns, esp. if of different calibers and configurations
and in a collapse situation I'd rather have excessive water purification and just enough firearms, than excessive firearms and little to no water purification
With thy said, I’ve had a few enthusiast friends the years, and for most of them the amount of ammo was more staggering than the number of firearms. Most also had a fairly well throughout strategy around what the shtf related arms should be chambered in as well as reloading presses. Further, that made sure their trusted group of friends were familiar with their shtf firearms. To be fair, the most excessive of these friends also had an equally excessive build out for water storage.
> History seems to indicate that in the absence of law, those with the most people inside a fortified structure and position are the most likely to survive.
Regardless of the usage of the term Sprite, the real measure of how appropriate it is to use the term for something else is how many people get confused in this manner. I can't really tell what the average reader would think because my background is in game development, so my view is not representative.
I think people can get bogged down in the technical weeds over what a sprite is in graphics. Historically it started out as mini graphics overlays in hardware. There was a transition period motivated by Amiga documentation to have Sprites and Bobs, to distinguish, and perhaps advertise, the use of the Blitter. When software or Blitter Sprites became nearly ubiquitous, they returned to simply being called Sprites, the fairly rare use of the original form became known as Hardware Sprites. Usually it was only mouse pointers that remained as Hardware Sprites
Obviously the term Hardware Sprites is not strictly a distinguishing label either. They are all controlled by software using hardware with some degree of balance between the two.
Most Android devices have hardware that's capable of rather interesting version of hardware sprites. Hardware real-time compositing with scaling and colorspace conversions.
For those that don’t know Project Farm, and are ready to hit ‘back’ after hearing him talk for 2 seconds, stick it out.
He’s incredibly thorough and detailed in how he tests and ranks things. And he tests all kinds of things, from drill bits and bed liner paints to portable battery banks.
Exactly, I was initially put off by how weird his videos are, but dude has serious conviction to presenting pure content with no fluff. He pays for all the stuff himself, and reviews kinda weird things you wouldn't expect.
I've bought a few things based off of his recommendations, like bungee straps and wrenches. Not always his top pick because I don't always agree with his weightings, but he flashes the raw data so you can make your own calls.
I got bored with his shtick. He could condense each of his videos to the 3 or so graphs that he puts up, in the middle and at the end. Sometimes I fast foward to those if it's something I'm interested in. But he's usually too superficial anyway.
Torque Test Channel is a lot better and more watchable imho.
Some of his videos are result of testing things for a couple of years, like headlight restorers.
Also, some of the things he shows are pretty through. If it was a wall-of-text sans videos or images, it'd not have this kind of details and information.
Because as everyone and their horse say, while he has a ranking and weighing, you can decide what to buy (if you need it) through the video by seeing how it's applied/works/fails/excels. This is hard to convey with text only.
I appreciate that TTC goes the extra mile with the continually updated global rankings spreadsheet[1]. It’s a lot easier to poke back at the recommendations from TTC than it is from PF. It’s also another clever source of revenue to keep the channel running cleanly.
Eh. AvE was amusing for a while, but the shtick grew old to me and it all feels much more theatrical and artificial (not necessarily artificial as in faking data, but artificial as in the entire process designed to be amusing rather than useful) as opposed to the no-nonsense "here's the methodology and the data" of project farm.
I don’t agree with canadian oilmen’s politics generally but I defend their (and everyone’s) right to protest loudly about whatever grievances they may have.
AvE is ok in my book. His channel is more posturing and fluff and in-jokes than useful content, but supporting legitimate political protests (even if you don’t share their political views) isn’t cancel-worthy.
My issue is that a large share of what he tests are Amazon products with alphabet soup brand names, where QA is likely nonexistent and the conclusions are often based on a sample size of N=1. Even if you wanted to buy the "winner", the exact same product may be sold under a different name a week later.
I also find his testing methodology inconsistent. In some cases he takes manufacturer specs at face value without actually verifying them, in others he goes out of his way to comprehensively measure things that don’t matter much (to me anyways), while skipping things that seem genuinely important (self-discharge of jump starter packs for example).
That said, he's doing this with his own time and money, and makes it available for free to anyone. A lot of this also comes down to personal preference in what you value in a test.
I’m honestly curious what drives this kind of response. You’re aiming a lot of negativity at someone who’s voluntarily spending his own time and money to do something that, until recently, simply didn’t exist at this level of detail. Yes, there are scientific limitations and fair critiques to be made—but the tone here feels less like constructive criticism and more like punishing the effort itself. That pattern is exactly what drains the internet of anything generous or experimental: people stop sharing when every imperfect attempt is met with hostility. It’s a bit like being stranded in the desert, dying of thirst, finally offered water, and rejecting it because it isn’t cold enough. You don’t have to call the work perfect to acknowledge that it’s valuable, imperfect progress rather than something deserving of contempt.
I don't know if the parent comment has been edited, but in its current form I read it much differently from you! It seems like fair criticism without any added snark or contempt. I don't want hostility or gratuitous negativity, but IMHO it's just not present here in the way you describe.
(Also the guy has millions of subscribers and a consistent weekly posting schedule, and this video is on the front page of HN, so I don't think his channel falls into the category of obscure hobby projects where it might be rude to criticise them at all rather than just ignoring them.)
Yup. He lays things out in a way that gives you power to make a decision. Perhaps you don't like his methodology or his weights, totally fine, you can understand what's important to you and feel pretty happy with a different pick.
Style wise, he's like a product reviewer version of kipkay lol. I do think that I'd prefer an NPR whisper version of his reviews though.
No, sorry. I just can't listen to him for more than a few seconds, it's something about the way he speaks, the fast cuts, the flashing, it's simply too much for me.
I hate that all content that would be better off as text has to be presented as videos now. Thanks for nothing, big tech.
To me, this doesn't show the weakness of current models, it shows the variability of prompts and the influence on responses. Because without the prompt it's hard to tell what influenced the outcome.
I had this long discussion today with a co-worker about the merits of detailed queries with lots of guidance .md documents, vs just asking fairly open ended questions. Spelling out in great detail what you want, vs just generally describing what you want the outcomes to be in general then working from there.
His approach was to write a lot of agent files spelling out all kinds of things like code formatting style, well defined personas, etc. And here's me asking vague questions like, "I'm thinking of splitting off parts of this code base into a separate service, what do you think in general? Are there parts that might benefit from this?"
It is definitely a weakness of current models. The fact that people find ways around those weaknesses does not mean the weaknesses do not exist.
Your approach is also very similar to spec driven development. Your spec is just a conversation instead of a planning document. Both approaches get ideas from your brain into the context window.
Challenging to answer, because we're at different levels of programming. I'm Senior / Architect type with many years of experience programming, and he's an ME using code to help him with data processing and analysis.
I have a hunch if you asked which approach we took based on background, you'd think I was the one using the detailed prompt approach and him the vague.
Sure, an impressive bit of tech, but the potential for misuse is immense.
To mock their user reviews...
> “Graylark helped me find the person I'm stalking in under 20 minutes. This tool is unbelievable — a true game-changer for those with restraining orders like me who just want to get back at them for that court order."
Do you think criminalizing an activity will stop criminals from highly lucrative criminal activity without going to North Korea levels of societal control?
This mentality is kind of dumb, no offense. We have a bunch of laws. You could just as easily use your argument to say murder should be legal, or rape, and certainly people have.
Laws do, actually, work, for the most part. No they're not perfect, but they don't need to be.
Legalizing capital crimes would barely make them increase in prevalence. The state punishes people for those things mostly so that other people don't.
Laws are basically codified morals, but shitty because they need to be written to be some semblance of objectivity. You typically get stupid results when you try and surgically codify niche things or try and legislate controversial things.
I'd much rather live in a world with LLM image location stalking than one where people just punt everything to the state.
I'm not disagreeing, but that article reeks of "we counted all the petty BS we don't even try to solve to make the numbers look bad to justify asking for more resources"
no, it's not, those things are illegal but cars and trains are not illegal even though you can use them to run over people. Knives, same thing. Alcohol is not illegal even though you can use them to get people too drunk to resist you.
Criminalizing everything that could be used to do bad things is an extreme position. Instead of jumping right to "ban it" you should probably first have a discussion where you consider whether (A) that ban will make any difference to its availability to most people who are criminally-minded anyway and (B) whether it has positive benefits to the law-abiding.
I don't think there's a legitimate purpose for this. I do think no legislature is capable of outlawing this in a way that's both enforceable with some degree of impartiality (i.e. does not provide plausible deniability for a prosecutor to drag a legitimate service through a courtroom for political reasons) and incurs acceptable collateral damages (e.g. doesn't outlaw unrelated stuff that's fine).
>1. They’re not talking about any lucrative activity — the primary worry is longterm sexual harassment via stalking.
There's potential for far more, and far more lucrative corporate and state harassment here. Think like low effort red light camera mail ticket but for the general case.
"We see that someone has posted a picture of X at your location. Here is a copy. This is a violation of a) your leas b) the zoning code, please pay us $1000, if you would like to appeal please fill out the attached form and include the $500 appeal fee and if you lose the fine will be $2000. Reminder: you agreed to this in subsection ABC of <your lease|the zoning code>"
How in the world do people even discover these things? Certainly not by clicking cells to set up an initial population then hit "Go". Brute force approach works I suppose.
> Few things in this world are as elusive as a hippopotamus testicle
reply