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

ha damn Astra made the same for my bike (TDM 850) https://punkx.org/tdm850 even posted it to HN but didnt pick up.

I think its amazing to be able to do such vizualizations in 30 minutes or so.

This is approaching Tony Stark making badassium level of tooling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddk9ci6geSs


That looks good, but have you checked whether it is correct?

I am working on changing the bushings and seals on the forks, and the diagrams are correct, I have them completely disassembled, and tbh I dont think I would've been able to have good mental model of them just from the manual.

The brakes also seem correct and the electrical as well, the starter relay relay assembly and fuses at least seem correct. I have not open the engine itself yet so cant confirm. But I will do a shim check soon, so I will let you know :)


Thanks!

(I am also amazed by the possibilities we have now)


as long as it is honest, everything is ok.

It's very caring and reassuring also. It gave me an elaborated response on how researchers may discuss ridiculously fun theories. And what should be my takeaways as engineer. I guess I should turn off the Work IQ.

their point is while the 'group' wins, the rest of the world loses.

localized gains, distributed loss.


as an art enjoyer, i do not feel that having less media written, drawn, or voiced by a computer is a loss.

a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product. i also think artists should be paid living wages with good working conditions.

thank you SAG-AFTRA, WGA, IATSE, AEMI and Teamsters.


> a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste

Neither can a record player. Nevertheless, we consume recorded music.


Surely you must be aware that record players don't compose the music they are playing?

I enjoy looking at beautiful rock formations. I am also thankful for the Sun and the Moon.

Who made those?

What's wrong with Automated Intelligence (TM) making things for me to enjoy?


Is that question supposed to be profound? Because surely someone has explained the formation of our celestial bodies to you.

Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you.

Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music.

Perhaps you could be a little more charitable and less toxic here and answer my obviously non-rhetorical question: Why shouldn't I enjoy things that were created through an automatic process? Hmm?


> Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you.

I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me? Unfortunately it also showed that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media, be it willfully or accidentally. Either way, it gives me zero reason to want to discuss the topic with you.

> Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music.

No, it's a stupidly simple question. GP is equivocating two things that obviously show fundamental qualitative differences, but did not give any reasons why this equivocation is supposed to make sense.

When I see comments where the only interpretation I can see has major and obvious logical gaps, I sometimes ask the obvious question in the hopes that they can show me a perspective I haven't properly encountered before. Because surely all of us are capable of recognizing how weak arguments based on "two topics look vaguely similar once you strip all nuance", when you can do the same with almost any two things?


> I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me?

Do you think that my goal is only to get a reaction and not to try and make any other point? I think someone who was "just" trying to get a reaction probably would just curse at you or do something else. Reactions are signals though and annoyance in particular is a very useful signal, hopeful to the one who experiences it. More importantly though, why, when you responded to me the first time, did you not address the very obvious non-rhetorical variant of my question though and instead, decide to appeal to me with sarcasm about the profundity of the rhetorical variant?

I'm trying to engage here and not put my trauma on display so I'll try to be as straightforward as I can. I am sincerely trying to respond in kind to you by telling you the truth and I will be glad to explain, in detail, my point of view. So, let me do that:

> GP is equivocating two things...but did not give any reasons why...

Yes. And I had hoped to correct that equivocation by pointing out the many random and/or automated processes that produce beautiful or otherwise enjoyable things. I wasn't agreeing with GP, I was improving the position. And I did, because very many useful things are created without any human interaction.

> fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media

Okay and you haven't engaged with the point that I'm making at all. It's different than the GP's. You also haven't given me any reasoning to backup your point that I am fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media. You want reasons why and I want reasons why. Let's engage in a civil manner.

The point that we're engaging on, really, is not the GP's. It's what computerliker said about how "a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product" and that "having less media [created] by a computer is a loss".

Nothing to misunderstand there and I disagree strongly on both the implications of the first and the conclusion of the second quote. That's what I'm attempting to address and not every possible argument ever made about AI creations.

So, do you still think that I'm misunderstanding something? Also, what about my point? Do we really want fewer things created by random and/or automated processes simply because a human didn't create them? I don't think so.


yeah and the shadows on the cave wall are alive and dancing just for you my friend

> a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste

So far ;-)


There is no moral imperative to help the world reach an optimum. Rather, the world is full of competing interests.

Most people never get to do their great work.

Bob Dylan reflecting on his early work https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Fh3pAJf-vdU

I wish to live my life so I can say one day 'Nothing I ever do again will.."


> then hundreds of dollars to service when they break

Can you explain what do you mean by that? It is quite rare to see broken trrs jack on a laptop, at least I have never experienced one, nor on walkman or anything getting heavy plug/unplug use.

I thought it is an issue in reducing the cost to manufacture the case or something.


The jack actually broke on my old xps. Changing it with an aliexpress replacement took about 15 minutes and something like 3€

So yeah, they break, but they are (or used to be?) quite cheap to fix (and this was one of the super thin 13" xps)


> So yeah, they break, but they are (or used to be?) quite cheap to fix (and this was one of the super thin 13" xps)

I had a slim XPS13 and IIRC the headphone jack was on it's own little board. That makes it quick/easy/cheap to repair if you know what you're doing / have the service manual / are comfortable taking it apart.

Not all things are designed that way; sometimes the jack is right on the main board and most people that buy dell laptops are not going to DIY through ali express; they're going to use up phone support time, require a shipping label, technician time ... etc.


All physical receptacles break and increase failures by measurable amounts at mass-production scale.

You take care of your hardware, even during "heavy use," many people absolutely do not - and are downright abusive.

Many of these parts exhibit partial or intermittent failure modes where it's more expensive and difficult to determine warranty eligibility than to just fix the problem. Peanut butter in the jack, loose solder joints, whatever.


I’ve never had one break due to heavy use, but broke one on my work desktop due to forgetting I was wearing headphones and yanking on it when I got up.


Does anyone even do repairs anymore? Swap a motherboard and that's it.


So... swapping $100 component for a $0.3 break?

Doesn't this make including the jack even less justifiable?


Or don't swap it and live without the jack. But I have never seen a broken 3.5mm port but I've seen many, many broken or flaky USB-C ports.


If anything it becomes way more lucrative for the manufacturer.


Motherboard companies do hot air work, absolutely.


depends, I would say it is not safe for work as it makes you question what are you doing there :)

its phenomenology porn


Can you imagine in few years getting Fable level intelligence at 20k tokens per second?

"You are not prepared" --Illidan Stormrage


In the next decade open hardware will win, any machine that exposes itself to be programmed by its user will be infinitely better than a machine that doesn't.

From keyboards to phones to tractors.

The appstore will die, and the walled gardens will die.

Unless they use 'for the children' to make open machines illegal.


Most people don't care. Microsoft themselves are even moving Windows towards a more closed model. Apple's in the same camp. If you don't use their official magical stores or get something that has a certificate validating who actually compiled the code, all the sudden you're using scary binaries that might do weird things to your box.

The six or seven percent of us that know how to use Linux will complain, but eventually I can even imagine bootloaders being locked down so much that you need to spend significantly more to buy a computer that actually lets you install what you want.


I am starting to seriously consider switching my pi-hole from blacklist to whitelist; block everything except few domains. I am convinced now most of the text I read is either ai generated, or people who wrote it have been influenced by AI so much that they write like it.

I cant read this shit anymore.

"creating cross functional AI evaluation team to keep the company honest"

Fucking garbage.

I have an old book between me and the keyboard, and just read it while the AI is thinking, so I can read non AI words.. otherwise its like reading books by the same author over and over and over again.

I will go touch some grass now.


yet


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

Search: