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

Emil is a highly cited scientist doing lots of empirical research despite relentless cancellation attempts by people who don't like the results: that intelligence is heritable to a substantial degree and that it differs statistically between groups of people. If you think any of his results are false, say so. Just accusing someone of racism is the exact type of mobster cancel culture that was already wrong in the case of Søren Kierkegaard.

So you are allowed to violate the law if you aren't sued quickly enough.

Yes. This has always been, and will always be, the case. It's the same in things like copyright law - you can violate any software license if the copyright holder doesn't know you're doing it, or doesn't want to sue you, or doesn't sue you in time. It's the same with taxi medallions or hotel regulations if you're trying to start Uber or AirBNB.

What Altman and Brockman did still seems highly unethical.

The tech industry largely does not care about ethics.

You misspelled “finance”.

That shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Well, you're allowed to violate the contract if you aren't sued quickly enough. You're allowed to violate the law if you aren't prosecuted quickly enough (for some crimes).

You are equating accusation of rape with rape. I shouldn't have to point out there is a big difference.

Until convictions of rape are justly meted out, you’ll have to stomach accusations taking justice’s place. Justice won’t just sleep.

Blame wealth for making the corruption of the courts too damn obvious. Now they’re not taken seriously.


You could just as easily say blame wealth for the rape accusations; there's much more incentive to make fake rape accusations of rich men than of poor men.

There's also a higher chance that wealthy perpetrators of sexual violence are under-represented in data. There's no denying the relationship between the 'justice' system and the wealthy. Case in point: Judge Persky in the Brock Turner trial.

There really isn’t that much incentive to accuse a much wealthier man of rape. Famously, justice is rarely (if ever) metered out when the accused person is wealthy and influential. This guy (allegedly) violently raped a woman on his boat and he still gets a speaking gig, so.

If you’re so confident it’s a solid way to get ahead, please go ahead and try it yourself.


> Famously, justice is rarely (if ever) metered out when the accused person is wealthy and influential. This guy (allegedly) violently raped a woman on his boat and he still gets a speaking gig, so.

"So"? The fact that someone is alleged of rape and doesn't lose their invited speech is hardly evidence of injustice. Allegations are not convictions nor proof of guilt.

It seems you are against the presumption of innocence. This presumption is itself a cornerstone of justice, not the opposite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence


Note that I was not speaking on the guilt or innocence of any specific person, just pointing out that when it comes to committing sexual violence the incentives to make accusations don’t appear to actually mete out as is claimed because the people who are accused rarely, if ever, have any actual negative consequences.

> actually mete out as is claimed because the people who are accused rarely, if ever, have any actual negative consequences.

I think the opposite is true. Accusing someone of rape is often very bad for the accused person, even if the claim is never substantiated. False rape accusations are defamatory.


Then we are at an impasse, because here is a guy who has been accused of rape actively doing a speaking gig, so…

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle.

This is not a legal forum. (In either the literal "this is an internet forum" sense, or the broader "place for discussion" sense.)

If you want to defend your techbro idols of charges far, far too many of their brethren are unquestionably guilty of, you're going to need a stronger argument than "you're not allowed to say you think he's guilty unless a court agrees with you!!"


Why do you need a separate PIN anyway? Shouldn't your Windows password be enough? Having to enter two different codes makes it unlikely a majority would use the system. I would be surprised if iOS or Android required a separate PIN for encryption.

You need a separate pin because windows lives on the encrypted disk so you need to decrypt it before you can boot completely.

macOS solved this (and a lot of other problems) by putting the OS on a separate read-only partition - technically an APFS volume - that doesn’t get encrypted. Microsoft’s backwards-compatibility obsession might not let them make that the default, but they could at least make it an option.

Not encrypting the OS means it's no longer considered FDE in my opinion.

But Windows doesn't need the OS to decrypt a BitLocker volume anyway because the bootloader can do it... otherwise how could a FDE disk ever boot in the first place?


Why not? The macOS OS partition is signed and read-only. Unless you disable SIP (which you shouldn't), your OS partition is bit-for-bit identical to everyone else's.

Couldn't they just use the PIN also Windows password? Then the PIN screen would have to look like the Windows login screen.

what about systems with multiple users?

Whose/Which Windows password? The OS is inherently multi-user.

Plus if you ever needed to change or reset your password, that complicates the encryption.


On the other hand, Microsoft has thousands of SWEs, surely a few of them must be smart enough to figure this out.

This movie is not available as video-on-demand where I live. I could rent it on DVD though. And buy a DVD player.


Thanks! Guess I don't have to buy a DVD player for now.

It seems that the people who don't care to make their old movie available as VOD also don't particularly care about copyright violations.


Papers being voted high on Hacker News are usually uncorrelated with their actual importance. It's basically a lottery. There are regularly more interesting papers going semi viral on Twitter.

What about broad unsupportable generalizations on hackernews, how do those rank?

On huggingface it was #3 paper of the day, which is neutral towards your hypothesis.

Considering that there is a paper with this many points perhaps once a week here (probably less), #3 of the day is pretty unremarkable.

I think it's plausible that a substantial fraction of the increase in cyber attacks we saw recently was caused by GPT-5.5. So the "too dangerous" framing is plausible, even if the more important reason is a lack of RAM (as the article author suspects) or compute to serve Claude Mythos. We already know from other events that OpenAI is far less interested in AI safety and ethics than Anthropic.

Someone recently made a graph showing that the gap between US American frontier LLMs and Chinese open weight LLMs (including DeepSeek v4) is widening. Unfortunately I can't find it anymore.

Update: GPT-5.5 found it.

Article: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/05/caisi-evaluati...

Graph: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/images/2026/05/01/1...


Give it time. It's inevitably a logistic curve.

I believe logistic curves make no sense when you have Elo scores.

This is propaganda, not data.

If the Chinese government published a graph that said the opposite, would you consider that a serious and objective source?


If the methodology in the accompanying write-up did look credible, yes. Though I have significantly more trust in US agencies, like NIST in this case.

Someone is an official website of the united states gouvernement. I would prefer another source.

I think no other source exists.

> Almost all commercial VPN services farm and sell your data.

Citation needed.


I understand it's not up to your (or anyone's) level of belief, but I am in intimately familiar with their modus operandi.

For everyone in the industry it is le secret de Polichinelle.


I think they don't sell their VPN data, because if that ever came out, that would destroy their business. Selling the data would be far too risky for them.

Thats like saying there is no corruption in government because it would undermine public trust in it.

Of course there is, and to huge extent. They know they canget away with it, so they do.


Beliefs can't be "gross", they can only be true or false, justified or unjustified. There is no such thing as a morally wrong belief. That would be the confusion between fact and value.

> Beliefs can't be "gross"

of course they can, like believing that mexican people are inferior or something – gross

> they can only be true or false, justified or unjustified

this is incorrect

> There is no such thing as a morally wrong belief

this is also incorrect

> That would be the confusion between fact and value.

this, too, is incorrect


When you believe some belief to be "gross", this changes nothing about whether it is true or justified.

whether you personally believe some belief is "true" or "justified", changes nothing about whether it is gross

It also changes nothing about being true or justified. If it's "gross" according to your definition/taste that doesn't mean it's false or unjustified.

It also changes nothing about being gross. If it's "true" or "justified" according to your opinion/taste that doesn't mean it's not gross.

Whether something is true or justified is not a matter of taste.

Whether racism is "justified" is not determined by a random internet person claiming it is, based solely on their personal taste.

Also it is gross, and not allowed here on HN, because the consensus is that it is gross, even if you personally disagree (which is of course allowed).


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

Search: