I have several Kindles for me and my kids, I have never bought a book on the Amazon store, instead I side load everything. Amazon basically subsidized a cheap and tough e-reader assuming it would drive everyone to the store, which I actively do not engage with. If it gets bricked in 10 years, I still think it would be worth it.

Again, this is after 13 years, so the subsidized price is worth it for me (personally) for at least 13 years of use. In the original article it compares it to kobo and says “Meanwhile, when you buy a Kobo, you are buying a tool that can be maintained for a decade or more”, so 13 years either way. That said, I don’t like Kindles approach, this is purely a cost benefit calculation and Amazon subsidizing the hardware makes it worth it (for me). I only use ereaders for reading and don’t want/need any more features.

Ketchup also has origins from fish sauce

Colatura di alici is very much in use in the west…

I found the 'not common' comment in the original article quite confounding. It is somewhat specific, yes But the general sense "anchovies and anchovy paste adds umami" is really strongly established. So it's become much more specific, but it still exists.

I wouldn’t imagine most people consider anchovy paste a sauce?

"sauce" is such an imprecise concept. Fish Sauce is a condiment. Anchovy paste is often used as a condiment/additive e.g. on a ceaser salad, or to perk up a pizza.

Fish sauce is added to soups, to dishes during cooking as well as at the end. Dressing a papaya salad with a fish sauce heavy dressing is only one way of using it, we use it to make dipping sauces.

We also use Anchovy paste as an ingredient in other dipping sauces, and dressings for salads. And we add it to meat dishes much as worcestershire sauce is: given its an ingredient along with Tamarind, it's much the same thing.

In Britain, it's a posh paste to spread on toast, much as we use Vegemite or Marmite. Anchovy toast was an afternoon tea thing.

I think, it's pretty sauce like. If not, I think it's a fundamental ingredient of sauces people reach over to use directly.

The company whos blog it is is "AI-assisted clinical documentation" - I feel this is an attempt to explain anti-AI sentiment as an unreasonable aversion to AI rather than the real reasons for anti-AI sentiment. There's a weird trend in the AI industry to pathologize people who don't like AI.

It's not "weird", it's hostile marketing. "How do we overcome the negative sentiment we see as an obstacle in order to sell to people who don't want it, or people who will be around people who don't want it?" It's an entirely natural, commonplace, awful thing. See also "how do we market cigarettes" and "how do we maximize social media engagement" (the latter being one reason outrage gets amplified).

I find it weird because I've seen traces of it before in people who believed in the singularity 20 years ago, people who really believed that anti-AI was pathological. Back then the stakes didn't seem as real and immediate as now, and now you can see it on pro-AI reddit subs. But I agree that language and attitude is co-opted for marketing purposes, for example last year when there was a lot of talk about doomerism.

Yeah. There are many critical safety concerns, and somehow people with vested interests in AI have tried to spin that as "oh, it's astroturf marketing by the AI companies to make it seem like their products are dangerous and therefore powerful, just ignore it". Which is simultaneously trying to promote the products and dismiss the opposition. It's infuriating, and blatantly wrong, but it's also a natural consequence of "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"[1].

[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/

> I feel this is an attempt to explain anti-AI sentiment as an unreasonable aversion to AI rather than the real reasons for anti-AI sentiment

Disagreed. It in an attempt to paint the real reasons for anti-"AI" sentiment as unreasonable, period.

its ok, you can say gaslighting, but its not only AI industry. the trend is a spread

Genuinely surprised at the extreme comments against sama here. I don’t think he’s a good steward of the technology, but I don’t think violence is funny or justified. I also don’t think it’s justified for him to use it to say that a negative article about him is correlated to this event. Seems to imply that an “incendiary article” led to this and that criticism is tantamount to calls to violence. He drives the conversation with apocalyptic terms, and both investors and crazy people buy into it.

> but I don’t think violence is funny or justified

Well, that's okay, because even Sam Altman disagrees with you. He absolutely believes that violence, including deadly violence, is justified - hence his contract with the US Department of War to use their systems in kill chains.

Perhaps the problem is that whoever threw the cocktail didn't use AI to select him as a target, or maybe he didn't receive payment for throwing it? Because what other difference is there?

I mostly agree with you - he seemed happy for the chance to play the victim. When the system is working, war is different because it has democratic process behind approval (Iran is obviously showing the system is breaking down)

But just because horrible people exist in positions of power doesn’t mean I have to become horrible myself. I accept that there is a threshold where that changes, but I think we would disagree that we’ve hit that threshold. If anything violence now just gives more excuse to justify further consolidation of power (look I got attacked! The anti AI people are crazy, any criticism of me is just encouraging them!) Imagine if it was a serious attack on sama, they could spin it into some serious gains for them.

The problem is sam is a prolific liar, as has been proved many times.

It's difficult to sympathize with the boy who cried fire

I don’t think someone should be burned alive because they’ve lied unless they’ve spread intentional lies that have caused death or harm to others which I don’t believe Sam has done. Personally I find it very easy to sympathize with someone who was attacked in their own home with their family unprovoked even if they have lied in the past. It’s crazy how blood thirsty people have became lately.

I am not talking specifically about him but when you reach a certain level in society and large enough umber of people start reading or listening what you are saying your every sentence must be extremely thoughtful because it might have unintended consequences, which are impossible to measure. That’s why so many leaders are publicly so boring and bland.

I think people just shouldn’t be burned alive.

I think Sam and people like him are *spoilers* like Jules Pierre Mao and Dresden on The expanse.

I think that he may genuinely believe that ai will produce a net benefit for humanity in the long term, but I am increasingly worried that they are absolutely fine testing their creation on the world without any consideration to the harm it can do to millions of individuals.

The assertion that he is benign would be more believable if he spent a shred of time lobbying for universal economic rights of citizens, or some model for redistribution of wealth in a world where most people don't need to work to provide the necessities of society.

Oh, and he's willing to let the government use his technology to mass-spy on Americans and to create autonomous lethal AI.

Pearl-clutching about ambivalence to his fate and comparing it to the barbarism of a mob gets shrugs from me.

Yes, I came to say the same thing, not just typewriter - it's a great idea but I wish they had the original recordings by themselves and not overlayed with ambient music.

I and others (but not as many as I would have thought) recognized the switch to algorithmic feed in 2006 was a fundamental shift in what social media was. But back then I predicted it would destroy Facebook, which was so wrong - really it ended up (partly) destroying western civilization.

I think people are good at sensing that things are changing but not how it’d play out. It’s very easy to see it in hindsight and even recognize it’s bad, I don’t think anyone saw how bad it would get. I just hope we don’t lose the ideals of free speech and the early promise of the internet with regulating platforms.

Presumably the amount of fact checking was "Well it sounds like something someone in that situation WOULD say" - I get the pressure for Ars Technica to use AI (god I wish this wasn't the direction journalism was going, but I at least understand their motivation), but generate things with references to quotes or events and check that. If you are a struggling content generation platform, you have to maintain at least a small amount of journalistic integrity, otherwise it's functionally equivalent to asking ChatGPT "Generate me an article in the style of Ars Technica about this story", and at that point why does Ars Technica even need to exist? Who will click through the AI summary of the AI summary to land on their page and generate revenue?

This plus stretching / yoga has been amazing as I'm entering my 40s. For a while I was just lifting and I had strong muscles but they were short and tight. Not everyone has that problem, but just noting strong muscles are half the picture, being strong and flexible makes life feel effortless and years of being a desk jockey.

I think it's a great idea to highlight that companies that fail in the VC context aren't necessarily bad ideas for companies - there is just a specific business model that thrives with VC funding (extremely high scalability, reliable unit costs) and companies that don't fit that or fail to develop in that direction may still be great businesses but get driven into the ground by VCs trying to find the one unicorn out of 15 in the profile.

Agreed, there's nothing at all wrong with a company that has a comfortable market fit than makes a pretty consistent $X/yr with Y employees/staff. Not everything needs to be the next big VC Unicorn. A lot of these ideas could very well be multi-million dollar businesses with a little effort.

Is there any effort to make real food more affordable for most Americans?

Is there any proof that "much of chronic disease is linked to diet and lifestyle"?

Is our bar so low that we give RFK credit for saying "eat real food" which everyone knows, while cutting vaccination recommendations, defunding public health and making our health care worse? The implication that chronic illness is a "lifestyle" problem is victim blaming, sure you can point to a lot of individual cases where this is the case, but the main issue is access to good, affordable food. I'm convinced the one thing that ties the varied MAGA coalition together is a belief that the problems of modern America are moral failings of the masses. Many of the coalition truly believe it, and the people rigging the system are more than happy to fund them to distract from their looting, just as the sugar industry funded blaming fat for obesity.

I don't like to be this righteous on HN, but RFK wagging his finger about how "diet and lifestyle" causes most chronic disease, which is where 90% healthcare costs go to, just upsets me. If you truly believe that, then who cares if people suffer from chronic disease. Go ahead and gut public health and the CDC, most people with chronic diseases brought it upon themselves! Doctor says "Eat Real Food".

The only hope I have is that he's committed enough to battle lobbyists and introduce more food regulations, like he did with food dye. That's the tough work, against entrenched power structures and real risk. Until then, it's all just talk.