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

People doing this say it makes things worse because then the bots download both.

Because not enough people do this earnestly, and many more do it maliciously (bot endpoints that lie, or provide significantly less information than people endpoints) or put it behind a business contract (yes, APIs), so the bots or agents can't trust it in general.

Also let's not forget that innocent sites suffering from floods of scrapers are actually the minority here - this is just a special case; the main reason for the tension is simply that most websites and businesses on-line rely on users wasting their time, and cannot abide any form of end-user automation. Their business plans hinge on their ability to force themselves on you.


It's defensively, not maliciously. Malice would imply that the the site owner is morally obliged to serve the bots.

Morally, site owner should not be trying to discriminate between "people" and "bot" traffic in the first place.

Not to mention that it solves none of the rate issues. If the scrapers are hitting your site 10,000 times a day, adding markdown isn’t going to change that at all.

I'm disappointed the game didn't lean into that more. Loki says you will be rejected as inhuman by Odin, but Odin just lets you cross the rainbow bridge without even commenting on your corruption. Also it doesn't show any reaction from the villagers.

How would anyone ever settle a case? Also, it's pretty easy to sign away your life and liberty: join the military.

I don't see signing away your right to access the legal system as an essential part of a settlement. You could just sign a settlement that says, here's what happened, here's the remedy we've agreed to. And then if one party decides to sue later on, the existence of the settlement could be used by the other side as extremely strong evidence that the matter was already concluded to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, and the lawsuit should be dismissed. But it would be "this was already handled" rather than "the plaintiff gave up their right to address this matter in court."

As far as the military goes, that's very much a special case, and it should remain so. The fact that you can give up certain fundamental legal rights by joining the military is not an argument for being able to give up certain fundamental legal rights by accepting a click-through agreement from Sony.


It's not difficult to communicate the difference between losing all future rights and settling a dispute over an incident that has already happened. I don't know why you'd act like it's a huge challenge to understand the difference.

But yeah; don't join the military.


Interesting read. I speculate that Yudkowski argued that it would be bad for artificial intelligence to 'believe' we wouldn't let it out of the box. It's fascinating because there's not really a first-order argument to be let out.

> Bradbury describes the fully automated smart home, but its technology does obviously not extend into the garden exterior.

In the 7th to last paragraph, second sentence, he lists the automated processes still going, including "cutting the lawn by remote-control mower".


We cannot allow a Torment Nexus gap!


> Nolan didn't want to add "cruelty to animals"

In one scene, Odysseus doesn't even blink as a puppy is thrown off a cliff.


With respect to Dr. Wilson, most of this reads like "A three hour movie didn't include every detail I've enjoyed during my lifetime of study." Every suggested addition just reminded me how bad I had to go to the restroom by the end of the film. It reads more like comic book fans complaining about film adaptations than a serious review.

Some of the criticism is just downright terrible. Knocking the film for not putting wheels on the Trojan Horse is just wrong, there's no other way to put it. There's no basis for the wheels in Homer, and the Trojans dragging the horse is one of the most visceral depictions of the story I've ever seen. It's something I've heard people talking about so it definitely resonated with people.

I had to stop reading at this point: "Defying the gods is noble and brave when Odysseus blinds Polyphemus, son of Poseidon". Just false. The exact same thing happens to them as in the source material. Polyphemus cries out to his father Poseiden, who punishes the crew. Odysseus's men literally say this.


> Defying the gods is noble and brave when Odysseus blinds Polyphemus

Here is my reading: when the action unfolds it is indeed depicted as noble, where Odysseus saves his men, and brave, where the men take on a fearsome but incoherent giant being. By the time they make it to their ship, though, the realization dawns on them and that's when we all know it was neither noble nor brave. And, the men are all doomed from the start, according to prophecy.

The action/adventure film depicted brave and noble actions. The mortal humans on Earth were saving life and limb of their own kind, for their wives and children.

Context matters.

The spiritual reality was far different. The unseen truths were pre-existing; the truths were partly known to them already; and the spiritual reality was revealed later on, but their darkened intellect and concupiscence caused them to act as warriors and in solidarity and brotherhood, rather than following the Divine Plan.

Hindsight is 20/20.


It's not depicted as brave or noble in the film. They are quietly sneaking around, whispering and miming to each other. Once injured, Polyphemus immediately speaks, leading the crew to realize this was wrong.


AI companies just need to capture more than half of the entire global entertainment market to avoid insolvency.

Seems unlikely, especially before the investment money runs out.


They're selling it for AI. Unless retro-nostalgia explodes and gamers are overwhelmed by a desire to pay for tokens (more than ai users), that doesn't change anything.


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

Search: