This is a question of access to capital. Since we're all on the VC site we should understand how that works; for things like that it's very important to get "angel" investors who are comfortable putting in less-than-six-figures to get a product to the stage where it is proven for bigger investors.
I'm glad that everyone's quoting Market for Lemons now, but it doesn't quite apply to Fairphone. Fairphone aren't trying to cheat you, there's no information asymmetry here; they're just providing a feature ("fairness") which you can't easily get elsewhere and that turns out to be really expensive.
At the other end of the "market entry" problem: this is why RAM is so expensive right now, you can't just spin up a new DRAM line in your garage even if you're Sam Zeeloof.
Why would a capitalist fund something that will obviously not make money, like a random Finnish dude's operating system, when there's already Microsoft Windows?
It’s a more acute observation about market dynamics than what is usually found in Marx. Marx heavily discusses how humanity interacts with capitalism, and focuses its market analysis on the labor market.
This is an old problem in philosophy, one that the pre-LLM systems were interested in, which got completely bypassed by the present approach. What is knowledge? It's not a simple question even for humans, we don't have a magic truth detector in the brain.
This is why LLMs are more successful in programming than other disciplines: it's easier to assess correctness of results, through proofs, typechecking, and testing. Similarly for maths and applied maths. Much harder in the humanities.
> successful in programming than other disciplines
It seems successful specifically in "computer science", for "programming" which encompasses a much wider field, "successful" is still up for debate. Also, we haven't even figured out yet what "success" even means in a software development process, for some it's that the program does everything the users want, in the way they expect, for other's, it's about correctness, reliability, performance, composability, maintainability and/or a whole host of other "measures".
But since there's a potential nonzero risk of permanent account loss, I don't want to experiment, and since I can still log in with email/password I'm going to keep doing that.
This would be bad; we've already had a few cases on HN where someone noticed that they could increment the customer number in a URL or similar, resulting in police action.
IDOR is a well known security issue that can result in exactly the scenario described (someone incrementing a counter in a url) and has on many occasions in different jurisdictions caused legal issues for the person doing it. Unless you are specifically asking for a hn reference, which I don't understand the relevance but I'm sure they exist.
Either outcome is risky for TR here. They're a very respected news publisher, so if they start colluding in fraud that would damage all their other business. If they take it seriously and don't produce results they'll get reprisals. I suspect they'll dig up every random voter registration paperwork error they can find and hand that over, while trying not to have their name tied to bigger conspiracy theories.
They're not a news publisher. Not exactly anyway. They are a huge conglomerate and Reuters is just one division - and a recent addition at that. TR is probably more known for legaltech, Westlaw and ancillary kind of stuff that ends up spilling over into other industries like tax and accounting. They also have a large government division, which presumably will take on this project. Their bread and butter is enterprise tech, consolidated public data and research tools. That's sort of where the news fits in. It's just another data source.
There's a massive cultural chasm here. I can understand why people want to hide themselves, and I can also understand the audience not wanting to see too much behind the curtain, but at the same time it feels unhealthy to not acknowledge that it's a performance with a performer, who should be able to get credit for their work if they want.
Hamlet dies on stage. At the end of the play, he gets up and an actor takes a bow. This does not detract from Shakespeare.
(aside: I think the possibilities for vtuber theatre have been under-explored in favor of musical performances, but that's probably just a matter of audience taste again)
This is a question of access to capital. Since we're all on the VC site we should understand how that works; for things like that it's very important to get "angel" investors who are comfortable putting in less-than-six-figures to get a product to the stage where it is proven for bigger investors.
I'm glad that everyone's quoting Market for Lemons now, but it doesn't quite apply to Fairphone. Fairphone aren't trying to cheat you, there's no information asymmetry here; they're just providing a feature ("fairness") which you can't easily get elsewhere and that turns out to be really expensive.
At the other end of the "market entry" problem: this is why RAM is so expensive right now, you can't just spin up a new DRAM line in your garage even if you're Sam Zeeloof.
reply