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

Have you heard that there's a RAM shortage?

Do you have telemetry about how often systems are overcommitted due to Windows Media Player memory usage? I'll bet Microsoft does.

Do you have telemetry about how often systems are overcommitted due to Windows Media Player memory usage? I'll bet Microsoft does.

Considering the way Microsoft's product line is these days, I have a hard time believing its terabytes of "telemetry" go anywhere but the Windows equivalent of /dev/null.


I'd bet the kind of people who care about the RAM usage of their media player haven't used Windows Media Player in a decade and disable as much telemetry as they can.

And Microsoft has incentive to force users to upgrade because their computers need more RAM, disk, and CPU

[flagged]


Nope, a comment that flippant about wasting RAM use deserves that snark. It's always been bad to do it, and it's even worse nowadays.

Ah, an alt account.

The parent was saying that AI wrote that, not you.


I don't see any of the typical markers of AI slop, like "It's not this, it's that" or overuse of the rule of threes. Are they just accusing based on the length of the reply?


Are you aware of what the US regime has done to Iran? There's a reason they say that.


Literally the devil. Not metaphorically a bunch of bastards, the actual devil. And not as performed by Tom Ellis.

There's a reason why I asked the guy.

And I asked him a few years ago now, so "what the US did" that the regime found objectionable has more to do with the US support for Israel and all the consequences of that than it has to do with any direct attacks by the USA against Iran; for direct action I think you might need to look at the 1979 revolution to undo the 1953 CIA- and MI6-backed coup?


"Our adversaries" are in the US government, or is this not crystal clear by now?


And more importantly, resisted releasing the files as hard as he could.


"Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall." is a VERY ChatGPT way to write. It's not proof, but the parent is right that this smells a bit of AI writing.


It's also a VERY HUMAN way to write.

I don't care so much about Digg, but the endless "haha, I caught you!" comments annoy me more than the rare actual AI-written content they label.


Not to the same extent at all. If you use ChatGPT for a while, you'll see it writes like that very frequently. Humans do write like that sometimes, but not with anywhere the frequency that ChatGPT does it. That's weak evidence for it being ChatGPT.


Suppose ChatGPT uses a semicolon more often than an individual person. On a pageful of comments from many random people, someone using a semicolon doesn't mean they're a bot even if 100% of their comments on that page includes one.


It behooves you to not write like that if you don’t want people dehumanizing you.


Screw them. I was writing like that before AI came along, and I won’t change just because it offends their delicate sensibilities.


If stupid people choose to dehumanize based on stupid rules, that is not my problem.


> It behooves you to not write like that if you don’t want people dehumanizing you.

I have to strongly disagree with you on this. It behooves us (as a species) not to degrade our own manner of speaking and writing simply because of a (possibly temporary) technical anomaly.

In my view, it would be really, really sad to lose expressive punctuation or ways of constructing sentences simply because they're overused by AI.

I, for one, won't be a part of that, and I hope you won't, either.


Your prose is poor so it is no wonder. Half the words you use are superfluous, some are nonsensical, and you beg the question.


Please consider reading the Hacker News community guidelines before you post again: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Would now be a good time to point out that I said that "It's not proof" and "weak evidence"? Because that is what I said.


Your next sentence then immediately took it as proof and evidence, so no.


Wasn't asking you, and that isn't what my next sentence said at all. Your reading comprehension could use some work.


So based on your one example, you immediately went ChatGPT! because…?


I think a human would have split the "it's not this, it's that" type of sentence into two separate sentences that could be more descriptive. This is a blog post, not a tweet, so there's no length constraint.

If they wanted to keep it to a single sentence, they could have used a a word like "rather" to act as a separator between moat and wall.


Impeachment, and then we could get there. It's not impossible.


With JD Vance things will go even worse


From all I've seen, he actually argued against this war prior to paying lip service to it. He'd be an improvement.


I thought Vance was the actual isolationist America first guy? Not Trump kind who's opinion changes based which authoritarian he last had a phone call with.

In this specific case maybe Vance is least worst option.


Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", then ran as his VP.

He's a windsock.


People are admitting that now. It's happening. There's some hope that something can be done about him.


That isn't true. There's actually a large number of people, probably in the millions, but probably not a majority of those who voted for him, who no longer support him in any way. And of the ones who remain, yes: they're pretty dense to still support him now. There are some lunatics who genuinely believe that the US has the right to dominate and exploit all other nations, but the majority of them simply believe the lies he's telling. I've already seen that when they are confronted with the facts about, say, Gaza, some of them can change their minds. It would be a mistake to turn them away instead of treating them like potential allies. There really is something more important at stake.


And yet others who are able to disagree with some (or even many) of his decisions while also continuing to believe he was the better of the 2 options. Most people I know hate politics or anything to do with it for this very reason. We can argue about political philosophy all day long but eventually you go vote and often have to choose between a wildcard and the walking dead.


If it's being burned, it isn't helium.


Helium deposits don't exist is the thing, the same structures in the Earth which trap methane gas also trap helium gas and some of them trap enough to make recovery economically viable.


And that helium comes from Alpha decay of Uranium and Thorium.


Today, I learned Helium does burn, and when it burns, it forms Carbon.

https://www.britannica.com/science/chemical-element/Processe...

Granted, the flare gas probably doesn't reach the prerequisite 100M-200M kelvin. I suspect high pressure is also required so the Helium stays close to the heat source.


Parent is referring to natural gas


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

Search: