> that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished.
Our force structure shifted towards logistics and infrastructure from combatants as we moved up the weapon complexity hierarchy. First automatic guns, then tanks, then airplanes.
To a large extent, a tank or air crew is 50 guys waving off 1-5, while they sit back at base and do hobbies between bouts of mechanic labor. They’re not literally at home, but we do fight with small mechanized armies while most soldiers watch on from the base.
Yes, even for infantry, the tooth to tail ratio for deployed expeditionary armies is now 10-20:1. Even that's down from cold war ratios due to mechanisation and automation on the logistics side.
It wasn’t over night but it did exactly what it intended and sped up a battle significantly as though you had multiples of troops compared to a musket firing line
Or that those “nonsense” phrases are not actually nonsense when spoken by a manager.
The conclusion they’re nonsense comes from the random generation and the technical perspective on semantics; but it’s entirely possible they’re generating phrases that do have semantic meaning when said by a manager… and hence their whole study is flawed.
They quietly assume their conclusion, when assuming their generated phrases are vacuous rather than contain coded semantic content.
Jesus bro it looks like shit, it smells like shit, it has the same texture – it is shit, you can’t convince me it is a chocolate. The purpose of the corpo speak is to inflate manager ego and fool smooth brains.
I think it's more like that you are signalling by your use of HTTPS at all, and the packet body itself is encrypted nonsense.
Hiding information in the protocol layer while the bulk content that is "supposed" to contain the meaning is present but actually meaningless. Or for a physical analogy the payload of the envelope vis a decoy and the real information is hidden in the way the flap is sealed.
Yes, taking 16 kb to transmit what could have been transmitted in 1 kb with the express purpose of making communication more difficult. That is what semantically emptier means.
I use HTTPS because it makes my packets “more retarded” than the HTTP version of those packets to anybody without the session key to decrypt the “retarded nonsense”.
That’s literally the whole point of encryption:
Your message becomes unintelligible to those who aren’t able to decode the content.
Except encryption isn’t made to protect enlightened few from stupid masses and their “poor” understanding. If you have something secret to say to other managers then just send an email to a mailing list. Assuming that only you and your clique understand the message directed at specific people is an insult to people around you.
It's called elite maintenance of the social class hierarchy. They can't help it, it's all they know. The thing that bugs me is it should be on us working stiffs to divest them of these habits. You can only lead a horse to water, however...
It was already going downhill a decade ago, eg, using bad think on video games.
But my personal experience is something snapped in a lot of people during COVID when people asked reasonable questions like — “is an experimental gene therapy really QALY positive in populations not at risk, such as healthy children?”
According to government actuarial tables, the answer was no: the UK government concluded that there was no point at which for those under 40 the immunizations prevented more serious outcomes than they caused. But people were (and often still are) absolutely rabid if you point out we (in administering a QALY negative treatment to a vulnerable population) decided to poison children and young adults en masse. I’ve had people look up my mother on Facebook for calmly citing UK government actuarial reports, which did the calculation on COVID vs vaccine harms.
That’s setting aside that on HN you’d get shadowbanned for even posting the clip of BLM leaders describing themselves as “trained Marxists” and BLM itself as Marxist in ideology. Apparently, no matter how politely you state facts, if HN froths irrationally in response it is an “inherent flamewar”.
But I’m not sure I qualify for what you’re asking, as I generally post under my true identity, not anonymously.
HN is a place where people don’t ask what is true with intellectual curiosity but classify opinions as “problematic” and justify bullying people based on that.
HN becomes emotionally upset if you discuss actuarial tables or quote people’s own words from their own presentations because those facts go against the narratives many on HN believe — and like many before them, people on HN believe censorship and bullying are justified by that emotional turmoil.
As you just did, impugning my character while carefully avoiding the veracity of my claims — only saying they’re “problematic”, as a good apparatchik would.
HN was one of the best places for finding cited research regarding covid and the mrna tech at the time.
With all the other conflicting information floating around online, it was a breath of fresh air to come to HN and see articles describing exactly how mrna works and why it was likely not a health risk, complete with thoughtful discussion. I'm too lazy to go look up citations and reference those old posts, so you can take this as anecdotal.
Little bit of projection in this comment, I would say. I didn’t reference your character, just your opinions - to equate the two is a bit juvenile - which now may be a reference to your character.
Also, “problematic” is perhaps the least emotional word I could have used, and yet you still found issue with it.
I would advise you stop viewing HN as a monolith, it will help you get over your victim complex, which will in turn hopefully help you see opinions as things worth changing based on new information, rather than value for your character.
Yeah it’s a euphemism and a bit of a shibboleth, which, like all shibboleths, can be a bit triggering to those who feel outgrouped by it.
I could’ve been more precise: “opinions that are based on weak evidence that confirm a certain preimagined view of the world rather than challenge it”.
I mean they made claims about the efficacy and risks of the COVID vaccine without sourcing them and used verbiage like "poisoning our children" to refer to vaccinating them. I think tip of the iceberg for "problematic opinions" is a fair response.
Just noting that I appreciate all the examples given here and by others, many of which made me feel a bit stupid and amnesic for asking my original question. I guess I have been over-focused on AI...
> That’s setting aside that on HN you’d get shadowbanned for even posting the clip of BLM leaders describing themselves as “trained Marxists” and BLM itself as Marxist in ideology. Apparently, no matter how politely you state facts, if HN froths irrationally in response it is an “inherent flamewar”.
Funny how you mention this like you expect everyone to take for granted that Marxist=bad and worth "hiding" etc... whereas negative reactions are likely due more towards that internal judgement discrediting yourself, vs trying to "hide the Marxism."
You think you can discredit people by saying "they're Marxists!" and yet you think people today are uniquely bad snowflakes about views they don't like. You're proposing that people are more likely to cry thoughtcrime now than in the past, by inadvertently exposing how you've bought into this idea of how just invoking the name of some old philosopher is worth demonization and has been for DECADES in many western countries...
Specs and logs, motes and beams.
Which specific points from which specific Marx texts piss you off so much?
(It's also funny that you didn't actually link to any of the things you stated. I don't care about the things you brought up enough to go hunting for them myself to try do prove or disprove you, but... do you really think saying "I can't cite these simple facts without getting in trouble" *without even citing them, just asking us to believe you that they're easily cite-able, is gonna go over so convincingly?)
“I wouldn’t pick up $20 if there was $100 on the ground!”
Most people would pick up both.
These economic proclamations don’t seem to make sense, when applied to different contexts — which suggests what you’re saying might be folk wisdom rather than sound theory (and greatly over simplifying the problem).
You’re also discounting ecosystem effects — gaming GPUs driving demand for datacenter and workstation GPUs as hobbyist experimentation turns into industrial usage. We don’t know what would happen if nVidia stopped suppressing the GPU market, because it’s never been tried — nVidia has always viciously undercut their own grassroots.
> “I wouldn’t pick up $20 if there was $100 on the ground!” Most people would pick up both.
No, it’s more like there’s a massive pile of both $20s and $100s on the ground. You wouldn’t waste time running between the two, you’d focus on the $100s
if you're within reach of both, then it's not a choice, and there's no opportunity cost in picking just one - you'd be taking both.
If not within reach of both but just one, and you picking one up means someone else might pick up the other, then which would you choose? The other is then by definition, the opportunity cost.
cash cannot buy more fabs. ASML machines are the constraint, plus TSMC's capacity is a constraint.
Not to mention that nvidia's cash pile isn't magic - they should not overpay for capacity; they're better off returning cash to investors in that case.
You’re standing on a traffic island in the middle of a busy road. The lights change allowing you to cross. On one side there is a $20 note, on the other there is a $100 note. Which side do you go to first?
I wouldn't pick up either even with empty hands. No idea where they've been. Maybe a fiver, a twenty sure. At that point I'd put down my bags and grab both.
Okay — but did they try to address that, eg, via easy to remember pass phrases? Or were they hacks pushing that complexity nonsense that XKCD called out as midwit math?
Passwords are the ultimate example of technologists turning in substandard bullshit and then blaming users for “holding it wrong”. If that’s Microsoft’s largest problem, they’ve deserved every call.
Walmart isn't directly competing with the Subway or bank that operates in the front of their store. There's not a second grocery store operating inside Walmart
For pasta: you can make it fresh so it only needs 2-3 minutes to cook, boil water in the microwave, and cook the pasta itself in that heated water (ie, on the counter as it cools from boiling). Like making instant ramen, but fresh pasta — throw in a stock cube and you can serve in the bowl you cook the pasta in.
> that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished.
Our force structure shifted towards logistics and infrastructure from combatants as we moved up the weapon complexity hierarchy. First automatic guns, then tanks, then airplanes.
To a large extent, a tank or air crew is 50 guys waving off 1-5, while they sit back at base and do hobbies between bouts of mechanic labor. They’re not literally at home, but we do fight with small mechanized armies while most soldiers watch on from the base.
reply