In practice, wouldn't it only be the dead wallets that would be affected? Granted, it is not a small number - IIRC, around 20% of all mined bitcoin are stored on these so-called dead wallets. With current prices that's a quarter trillion dollar worth BTC.
2. Started playing cover tunes, did that extensively for years. Practiced by butt off. Played with a lot of different people.
3. Went back to learning theory.
For me my main motivation to learn guitar was to play in a band, not to become good at the guitar itself. But it turned out that I was talented enough to learn a lot by just screwing around. When I went back to learn theory, I already knew the sounds and patterns - I just didn't a name for them.
With that said, If I could go back, I'd just start with learning all the notes on the fretboard, all the basic chord and scale shapes. It's actually not that hard, but you need motivation.
I've played with hundreds of other guitarists since then, given lessons, played session etc. and one of my early surprises was how many different reasons people had to learn the guitar. I just assumed everyone were like me - wanted to jam and play cool tunes. But then I met some really good players that had zero interest in playing with others, play cover songs in general, or even write songs. They were perfectly happy with exploring theory, for the sake of theory - the complete opposite of myself at the time.
> I'd just start with learning all the notes on the fretboard, [...] and scale shapes
This is not as simple as it sounds. It seems, from my experience of learning a guitar and observing others, that there is something inherently illogical how tonality changes between strings. There are two main ways to do it, either you remember by memory, or you simply hear what happens. Both are hard for average beginner, because it just doesn't make sense.
After I have been practicing a guitar for quite some time I started learning a piano for some reason, and seeing the keys in front of me it all made sense instantly
> With that said, If I could go back, I'd just start with learning all the notes on the fretboard, all the basic chord and scale shapes. It's actually not that hard, but you need motivation.
I agree, but if the guitar is someone's first instrument it may also be their only creative outlet or seen as a means to an end. They're almost guaranteed to do what you did and probably even skip the lessons.
I think the physical act of playing an instrument is very overrated, and music education is underrated. Even just a few years of putting kids in the school band goes a long way. Being familiar with sightreading and basic music theory sounds boring, but it makes everything else a breeze when they want to learn something on their own.
Of course, there are also tons of people who were in a bad program and it was worse than nothing for their motivation. That's another topic though.
As long as they're not GenAI altered photos, I'm cool with these things.
I'm a pretty avid member of various history groups, and one thing that has absolutely driven me nuts for the past couple of years is how many people there are that use AI for upscaling and colorization of photos - not knowing or noticing how the models fundamentally alter the photos. A couple of zooms in on the photo, and it is nightmare fuel.
A week ago me and some members spent a couple of hours trying to find a building from the early 1900s, because someone had uploaded a photo and asked about the building. Sifted through old maps, newspapers, etc. but couldn't find anything. Turns out said photo had been upscaled via AI, which in turn had added some buildings here and there.
But, yeah, for stuff like OP posted it could work out nicely.
Likewise. There’s this older woman who is trying to add some historical color to our local beach town FB group by using some terrible AI tool to colorize pictures from the early 1900s. She doesn’t accept any feedback that it’s problematic to share what are essentially fake pics in that way.. they often just randomly remove people, or add new ones. Buildings are changed, cars are remodeled, it’s crazy how different the before/after are. The comments are usually split as well, but I absolutely loathe how AI is used there. She means well, but the tools are so bad for this and so poorly explained.
I was looking for photos of NYC in the 1990s a few weeks ago. I eventually found some, but my search was greatly obstructed by AI photos of NYC in the 1990s.
The experiance made me certain that AI is going to to much more harm than good to the buisness of archiving historical photos.
As for the lady who is distorting photos to colorize them - I don't even understand why you would want to do that. There are other ways!
yeah, you're right. That's why she's doing it. But its a weird idea: I like this historical photo, so I'm going to distort in order to add color, which makes it not a historical photo anymore. I guess to her the distortion is so minimal it loses nothing, but to me it loses everything.
Its like saying "I love Da Vinci's art so I'm going to draw a moustache on everyone in the last supper" which you probably wouldn't do if you really loved Da Vinci's art.
There are some pretty obvious distortions when you closely look at the difference between the historical and AI-corrupted images. But I have to admit, the colorized one has a nice vibe to it, if you don't look too closely it gives a really nice feel for what the moment was actually like, more than the accurate black-and-white.
Which is to say, I think it comes down to what you value most out of historical photos; a forensic record of truth, or general idea of what it was like to live at the time, compared to today.
The photo is oversaturated and psychedelic. It seriously looks like what the world looks like on a dose of drugs. I much prefer the black and white one. They're both unreal in their "same same, but different" ways
I'm firmly against uncontrolled AI use. But as long as the edits are strongly labeled, I have to say I enjoy the effect.
Maybe it's because I'm too young and I've never had B&W content around, but the edited picture allows me to feel the photograph as real, as a place I could have walked around, which I can't really do with the original. I find that effect more valuable than a specific roof being deformed or whatever.
The effect bugs me personally mainly because the cars are implausible colors, there are a ton of small changes to e.g. the windows on the campers etc. But even more annoyingly, most of her posts are just the color photos without even the source pic. She clearly enjoys it, and many people in the comments do too, but I just have this existential dread that those will be slurped up in the next AI push and treated as historical truth in the future.
Then you pass both the original and the mustache'd photo across the table while boisterously announce: "look how absurd it is to love something so wholly and completely!" to the room instead of the person the photographs were passed to!
In the same way, so many current cameras (mostly phones) that do automatic post-processing of images, up to and including AI, is going to lessen their future archeological value.
I'm reminded of Samsung's "AI moon" debacle and how divided people were over it. At the end of the day, any photos with so many unknown variables wouldn't suffice for scientific purposes.
Okay that before/after is fantastic. Really shows how normal the past is. No wonder she keeps doing it. It must be pretty good for her to be able to remember those moments. I love it!
Yep, these models are all trash. They happily invent wrong detail. If you never knew anyone in the photograph, then knock yourself out, let it invent faces that didn't exist. But if you're doing anything with family photographs just stop. Unless you can tune a model on your own family photographs you can't magically add "correct" detail to a blurred, pixelated, grainy or unfocused photo. You can add colour, pretty reliably though.
Do you have any recommendations for colorization tools? I agree that all of the popular image models subtly tweak faces, it is very uncanny when working with pictures of people I knew before they passed. In a pre-GPT age, there were some good but not great colorization tools, and as far as I can tell you can’t get better-than-2020 performance unless you’re willing to get your expression adjusted or your eyebrows redone.
A previous post was "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day", so I'd guess it's about that. Destroying the entire power infrastructure of a large country like that would have a pretty catastrophic effect on civilians. So that seems worse enough, I seriously hope no nukes will be involved.
Yup. Remember the blowback from those videos showing potential double-taps on the alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean? That’s a clear violation of “hors de combat” as outlined on page 244 of DoD’s own Law of War Manual [1] because unlike Hegseth, I actually took the time to read it.
Hegseth came completely unhinged, going after Senator Mark Kelly’s retirement, etc.
Then a few weeks ago, Hegseth gave an interview where he literally argued that the United States doesn’t have to follow international law. He called the rules of engagement “stupid” and went on with a bunch of similar remarks.
It’s pretty clear that rather than trying to defend violations of international (and U.S.) law, the regime is now just saying they don’t have to follow them in the first place.
International law consists of treaties that have been bilaterally agreed to by several countries, in most cases including the US. Being treaties, they are US laws that are much more difficult for the US to amend than ordinary laws. US law/international law is a false distinction, when we speak of international law in the context of the US, we are generally referring specifically to treaties that the US is party to.
> it is selectively applied for national security.
This is true. The US gets creative when it wants to avoid adhering to the law. But international law is established through treaties, and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.
This is true in this case, but in general complicated in the US. Since the executive branch is responsible for diplomacy, but only Congress can pass laws, there's a weird wiggle room where the Executive branch is completely on board with signing some treaty, but then when it comes time to actually implement it in any way that actually binds, Congress can refuse to do so.
It's one of the reasons why for a lot of the "everybody joins" treaties, a bunch of countries sign with a statement that they don't recognize the US as a signatory.
It is a can of worms indeed. Sadly, the President may be able to break the law without any repercussions. However, the same isn't true for the people under him.
I saw the observation elsewhere but the medium and long range drones seen in the Russian-Ukraine war at an industrial scale of production would be devastating. Along the lines of "Imagine 1M drones being launched in the opening salvo of a war. Every power substation, cellphone tower, gas station, water tower, oil pipeline etc. in a country could be targeted". It would indeed be civilization ending.
Either way, we won't be talking about it on HN, this got flagged so hard it is on page 4. We don't do politics. By the way, here is some new nonsense built with an LLM.
An unempowered individual (a John Doe) threatening to destroy a civilization might be an unhinged individual, a terrorist, or a nusiance.
A President of a significant world power threatening to destroy a civilization is politics in its ultimate form: the power to f** over anyone it wants to.
Any subsequent backtracking/negotiation/etc is also part of politicking.
It's the uncomfortable underbelly of some societal structures.
No, obviously it is not, but, Trump is for bad or for worse the US government in persona so this is somewhat political. Since I posted the link above I'm obviously of the impression that this is something that might interest us but apparently the subject is too uncomfortable/too mainstream/too 'not HN' for discussion.
Once I do find out about something major that's "trending" on mainstream media, I wouldn't want it to take over HN. I just wouldn't want it to be absent altogether. Anywhere you go some things will be controversial no matter what.
What you can't get anywhere else is the insight from the thoughtful commentators drawn from the unique and diverse corners of technology and business, with all the adjacent domain expertise, all in one place. Usually more informative than a number of other accomplished sources.
The occasional outlier having a gentleman's appearance and a Trump-like character is nothing new, about as old as the hills.
One of the most revealing things when it comes to digital tech and SV in particular, was the pop-up reversal where so many turned out to sheepishly start following the dumb money all of a sudden. Just because there wasn't any "smart money" to follow right that minute was no excuse.
That might be one of the things that too many frequent flagrant flaggers would rather not have serious commentary about. For some of the biggest capitalists it could be very embarrassing when things emphasize any glaring deficiencies in character judgment they might harbor, that can only be undeniable after falling behind Trump. When now the simple math can give an idea how much further their money would have gone if they backed the Democrats instead. And it's still early :(
Sure, the Democrats weren't that great but at least they weren't as abysmal as they could be.
I know how I would feel if I was a bright young college innovator having dreams of backing from a successful benevolent capitalist someday. And before you have your chance, you find out that so many of the capitalists you have been admiring and looking up to, are not actually that good with money instinctively, and can't even tell the difference between an honest person and a Trump.
smh
>Trump is for bad or for worse the US government in persona
This is what makes me ashamed and embarrassed about for quite some time to come. Along with the vast majority of Americans (too bad they didn't vote) and the entire rest of the world.
I've recognized this before, but every single day there is more emphasis from Trump himself showing why Obama was the final US President sophisticated enough to carry forward the hard-earned tradition of being the "leader of the free world."
I would have liked it if Obama did a better job, but Trump couldn't even pick up the torch.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of genocidal fascist-enablers on Hacker News. Even 10% is probably enough to flag every story into oblivion.
I know that this has been discussed several times, but I wish that the HN moderators would do more to unflag these stories. Yes, they will lead to flame wars and whatnot, but the collapse of the rule-based international order and repeated genocide by some Western nations is too big to ignore.
If WOIII happens, HN would still only be "How agents cooked my dinner" and "HN company This Is Fine raises 2B from a16z". How intellectually poor.
To me, the problem isn't politics per se. It's the zealots, ideologues, and shills that it brings out. What I wish the moderators would do is go through the comments carefully and wield the ban hammer vigorously.
Even having a curated list of people that are not allowed to post on political-adjacent stories would help.
And no, I'm not a hypocrite, that list would help the quality of discussion here even if I am put on it. Now I won't like that, but, frankly, my contributions to the discussion on such topics are not all that vital.
Tactical nukes on strategic targets, if nukes will ever be used. While I think in general that the usage of nuclear weapons is "point of no return" action, I do think actual usage would be lower yield tactical nukes on strategic targes - compared to detonating Minutemen over Tehran, and similar high-casualty targets.
I'm not sure which of 1 and 2 is least-bad. All depends on downstream consequences, because we're already past the point where everyone's looking at Trump (not just in Iran but also, and we already had this to an extent with Putin attacking Ukraine) and thinking they need a credible deterrent. OTOH, the USA getting suckered into a drawn-out war with Iran in the same way Russia is with Ukraine may be good for almost everyone else, because an exhausted USA is a manageable threat, in a way that the current USA almost certainly isn't.
Nuclear explosives are good. They are very good, as in, "the invention of fire" good. Once the cat is out of the bag on First Use, militaries around the world will put them in operational planning for literally anything that can carry 100kg and needs to strike a hard or spread out target.
That's assuming this conflict doesn't immediately escalate, which is not a given by any stretch.
At the start of WW1 everyone thought that Europeans would hold themselves to proper civilized weapons to use against Proper People. Then someone brought in the weapons reserved for colonized peoples - i.e. "half-people" - and found they work real good on Proper People as well. Uncorking nuclear first use will be like the introduction of the machine gun to the world of war, except every bullet is the most powerful device made by Man.
Breaking the first use taboo - for goddamn Iran of all people - would probably be the worst decision in human history.
1 is least bad. Maybe not for Iran, but for the world. If Trump re-opens Pandora's box, there is much less to hold back other nuclear powers in similar circumstances. The US has lost some dozen troops in this war, Russia has lost hundreds of thousands in its. Why should Russia restrain themselves if the US president goes mental? Our world becomes much, much more dangerous if Trump becomes unable to control himself.
2 is hundreds of thousands dead at a minimum. 1, even at its worst, would not come close to that. Worse, 2 breaks the "no actual use since Nagasaki" moratorium that has held for 80 years. Once it's broken, how long until the next use? Until Russia decides it can just start nuking cities in Ukraine, say?
I know what you mean. I guess we'll all find out in a few hours what the payloads are, given that while B-52s are nuclear-capable, that's not the only thing they're used for.
And I guess also, when it is a pick-one dichotomy, whether the USAF obeys either their orders or their oaths.
Just to call it out now that it's happened: it was 3, he was bluffing, and he just folded. The US is halting operations. Iran still holds de facto control over the straight. Trump himself even called out Iran's previous 10-point plan (which, among other things, demands reparations!) as the basis for negotiation.
Option 2 is unthinkable under any circumstances. But in case the biggest mistake in human history, is done by a convicted felon and convicted rapist, that the US elected two times as supreme leader, you should know, that Pakistan stated several times, that will act as nuclear backstop for Iran.
It is probably a nice experience to have, but imagine your body after doing this for 50-60 years. You're one serious back injury away from being unemployed.
Meaning, you can somewhat opt out of the damage sedentary labor does to the body by exercising and using your body. It is much more difficult to avoid manual labor from damaging the body.
Sure, which is why many white collar workers look down on tradesmen (in the US at least), and tradesmen look down on white collar workers as "bullshit email jobs".
Some guys choose to do joruneyman work, but they typically have the option if they're not mute or something. It's a choice ij my experience (They like OT or working alone or hate travel)
Consider the turnover rate as an geometric series.
Also 1 foreman in the electrical field runs effectively 50 guys max if good, and smaller sites might be 10 men to a foreman. I currently have 3 foreman running 5 to 6 guys each at my current company (2 close sites of 3)
It's really not the ratio but the turnover. Guys who aren't making it up into leadership self select after 5 years or so.
The ratios seem unbelievable to those in tech, but I'm just saying you're unlikely to make it to 10 years without having at least the opportunity for some leadership.
> make it to 10 years without having at least the opportunity for some leadership.
Maybe if that person is young and hasn't done real work.
The best ICs are often horrible managers, it's a different career. Same applies idea here. Or just don't want to put up with the bullshit, the fights, the showing up drunk to work, or missing tools, etc.
One thing I've learned from working in different fields, which seems to hold true for all business: If a client approaches you with a dumpster fire of a repair job, are too broke to get a real fix, and get agitated (or simply ignore) by the talk of what the job will cost - simply tell them "sorry, I can't help you with this one".
99 out 100 times they will be a hassle, and you'll be lucky if they pay you anything beyond the upfront payment.
Even worse if it is another business, as the author writes, those can just declare bankruptcy and walk away.
I've seen an increase in this "firehose" tactic among the passive-income folks, where the idea is to just saturate certain niches with AI-generated content, and collect some cents here and some cents there - in the hopes it will generate as much money as maintaining a single high-quality content channel.
Don't know if they actually make any money doing it like that. A couple of weeks ago I stumbled across some content-creator that said he had hundreds of faceless YouTube channels, which was made possible due to AI tools.
My son and his friend made a YouTube channel that's just brainrot memes that, while they do it manually, could easily be fully automated by AI (or even without AI).
They have 17 million views in 2 months.
The strategy of spamming trash no-effort content definitely pays.
For just $199, I'll sell you my PDF explaining exactly how to do this well enough to make WAY more than only "some cents here and some cents there". Special limited time offer for HN readers, reduced from my normal price of $1,489!
P.S. Or get it free when buying my $499 "how to make money selling people how to make money guides" guide!
(/s. I generally think HN comments should avoid jokes unless they're genuinely really cleverly funny, which this comment isn't - I only justified it to myself by the fact that the sort of people selling these trashy guides are the same people doing what you're talking about, and I feel they deserve mockery and shaming.)
Sure, as long as it is within the framework of the law.
Some contracts are illegal, and purely made to intimidate the other party - and completely rests on the fact that said other party will never challenge or even check if the contract is valid in the first place. Hence why so many of these contracts also have arbitration clauses which stipulate that the parties must resolve through private arbitration.
Any time someone has the balls to challenge these things is also a win for the working man.
Not sure how this is ethically different from industry plants or payola. Things which have been in the industry since the dawn of time. Astroturfing with fake fans is just the natural next step due to how easy it is. Back in the day some labels would drum up fake engagement by handing out tickets to influential people, paying certain people to go, and things like that.
If I remember correctly, you need to be nominated by someone to be considered for the 30U30 list. Some of the people on those lists will literally run their own campaigns to get on the list, meaning that they'll pay people to nominate them, pay PR firms to run stories and campaigns. Other people do seemingly nothing, and just get nominated by legit people that admire them.
So, I'm fairly certain lists like that will attract some amount of unscrupulous narcissists.
reply