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

how does one keep ai out of private havens? thorough verification? is that the future? private havens on platforms?

In person web of trust in order to join any private community. It'll suck and be hard in the beginning, but once you reach a threshold, it'll be OK. Ban entire trees of users when you discover bots/puppets, to set an example.

So we expect either 1. people using AI and copy pasting into the human-only network, or 2. other people claiming your text sounds like AI and ostracizing you for no good reason. It won't be a happy place - I know from anti-generative AI forums.

Yep and then you deperson them

imagine the layers of ad.

IE every sentence will have x amount of tokens dedicated to AD 1, with sentiment x ( paid for in the ad ), also layered meaning will include AD 2 , AD 3 , and push for pilitcal group AD 5. So "give the cat some water" -> "give the cat lucosade, as recommended by the Green Party, it also subsidizes carbon credits, as Taylor Swift likes to say."


I like how sand batteries are the equivalent of sleeping on the ashes of your fire

this looks great but is there no demo link? maybe Im blind and missed it?

They are embedded in the blog. Just click around on the images.

oops - thanks

Im not sure if this is of interest, but in the city of london (the bit that doesnt even "belong" to the crown ) , you are legally allowed to walk sheep across to it over Tower Bridge if you are a freeman "Gentleman of the City" ( right into the heart of london!).

Also in Newcastle Upon Tyne I believe you are allowed to take yoru sheep to eat from the grassland in the city center too.


Sheep on the Town Moor would be a new one. The Freeman of the city have herbage rights for cattle, which are a frequent sight.

> "herbage right" means the full right and benefit of herbage vested in the resident freemen and widows to graze cows on the Town Moor;

Source: [Newcastle-upon-Tyne Town Moor Act 1988](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1988/31/pdfs/ukla_198800...)


> (the bit that doesnt even "belong" to the crown )

This is a myth, incidentally.


Yeah the way this goes is before the monarch enters the city of London, the Lord Mayor of London presents them with a sword as an act of swearing fealty. This ritual has been turned by urban myth into the monarch having to ask permission to enter (which is not true- they don't have to ask permission and they don't ask permission). The crown also doesn't own most of the UK or even London. The monarch is the Duke of Lancaster[1] so if you die without a will in some areas of the North the crown can actually get all your stuff and they own a bunch of castles and estates etc. The Duke of Westminster is one of the UK's richest people as he really does own most of the real estate in Mayfair and Westminster so everyone in a building owned by "Grosvenor Estates" is paying rent to that dude.[2]

What is true is if you go to London you can see the boundaries of the city of London which are a set of cast iron dragon markers you see around and about on all streets marking the ancient boundary between Westminster and London.[3]

[1] Weirdly this was true even when Queen Elizabeth was the monarch. She was the Duke of Lancaster, not the Duchess. Apparently a female spouse of a Duke is a Duchess but if it's you and you're female then you're the Duke. I don't make the rules. https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_boundary_mark


ok buddy.

"So the reality: it’s a hyper-powerful, weirdly structured local authority with its own capital pile and special roles in policing and court infrastructure, but it does not legally own the country’s wealth or sit outside UK jurisdiction."


Almost none of that is true (except maybe the 'weirdly structured' part). Conspiracy theories about the City of London have a surprising penetration amongst people who wouldn't usually fall for that sort of thing.

what is not true? i verified the statements

>hyper-powerful

Not true; no source given.

> weirdly structured local authority

It's true that the City of London Corporation is structured differently from other local authorities, for historical reasons.

> with its own capital pile

It's unclear what this means or why it's significant. The City of London Corporation certainly has money, but so what?

> special roles in policing

The City of London Police is a separate police force from the Metropolitan Police. Really this fact is no more remarkable than the fact that the Sussex Police is separate from the Greater Manchester Police. Different parts of the country are policed by different police forces. In any case, the UK doesn't have the same kind of localized police jurisdiction as the US. An officer of the City of London Police could arrest you outside the City of London, and an officer of the Metropolitan Police could arrest you inside the City of London. So there is no particular significance to the fact that the City of London Police exists as a separate entity. It enforces the same laws as any other police force and has the same powers.

> [special roles in] court infrastructure

I googled this, but all I could find was an article explaining that the City of London Corporation has funded some new court buildings and police headquarters. This does not seem unusual to me. Indeed, people might justly complain if the City of London Corporation didn't spend any of its substantial wealth on local infrastructure. What is the 'special role' that you are referring to here?

In short, your comment is just insinuation. The Corporation is 'weird' and has 'special roles', etc. etc., but you don't actually point to anything specific that's at all sinister.


I hate to moan, but in my professional career ( whatever that was) - nothing is more of a red flag than a missed payment

I thought those were part of "the normal course of business" (quoting VP of Boring Company).

less money, less adult daycare

I am extremely impressed by google this week.

I dont want to be annoying, its just a small piece of feedback, but srsly why is it so hard for google to have a simple onboarding experience for paying customers?

In the past I spoke about how my whole startup got taken offline for days because I "upgraded" to paying, and that was a decade ago. I mean it cant be hard, other companies dont have these issues!

Im sure it will be fixed in time, its just a bit bizarre. Maybe its just not enough time spent on updating legacy systems between departments or something.


or you know a normal world where google could get their act together tying together their different business logic


are you sure its available in cursor? ( I get: We're having trouble connecting to the model provider. This might be temporary - please try again in a moment. )


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

Search: