Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more s-lambert's commentslogin

You don't pay taxes on unrealized gains in Australia unless they're in a self-managed superannuation fund and you have over $2 million. Regular investments outside of super are only taxed when you realize the gains. Superannuation is your retirement funds, doesn't seem that relevant to the start-up ecosystem.


Probably referring to https://x.com/yacineMTB


But working on interesting things is mentally taxing while the tedious tasks aren't, I can't always work at full bore so having some tedium can be a relief.


It'll sort of die, you can't access them directly but if you take the link and paste it into discord (like one with just yourself) then it'll still work.


[flagged]


Tbh I am even surprised those links were a thing to begin with, at the end it is mainly to share stuff on their chat platform, they sort of allowed that, but feels weird that it was a thing to begin with.


Browsers should wrap that link with a "unwrapped link" that links to the source plattform, which usually is not discord.


Err, I don't think that'd be possible?


The browser would be aware of certain types of links, follow them one level, then present the target link as the actual target.

Not a default behavior, but would be a nice option to have to preserve nettiquite.


I'm fairly certain the CDN and browser would be unaware of the source of the image/file being hosted on the CDN. There would be no links to follow.


What? Discord isn’t meant to be a media hot linking service. They’re literally doing it on purpose, to stop people from doing what this person is doing.

Christ.


This isn't stopping people from sharing discord media links though. It just means that others who did not share the link and cannot do anything about that will see broken images/etc. in the future.


The Futurama episode "All the Way Down" and the visual novel Anonymous;Code have the same premise, it's a fun one.


Embassytown, also by China Miéville, is traditional sci-fi and really good as well.


And from his bio: "I've been coding professionally since 2014", that wasn't that long ago, I started around the same time and senior was definitely just as meaningless.


I've been coding since 1998. Wherever I've worked, 'senior' has always just meant 'doesn't need to be supervised'.

The standard pattern is to work 2 years as a junior developer, then jump ship for a senior job and double your salary.


But there's no supply for the people who know your product and codebase except for your existing employees, isn't that the whole point of paying them to stay?


They can be onboarded and trained


In my experience it's virtually impossible to reach the same level of familiarity with a codebase as the people who originally wrote it. This is not only due to years of accumulated complexity and debt, but also the fact that code simply does not capture business intent completely, let alone correctly or with full context.

This is why projects tend to be put on maintenance mode or rewritten (piecemeal or from scratch) once their original owners are gone. This can be, but isn't always, expensive for the business' owners.


Depends heavily on the company and codebase. I've had situations when there is literally no way to arrive at the correct implementation unless you ask the guy who 8 years ago spent several months analyzing a particular unfixable hardware bug.

The worst case is mass layoffs instead of natural gradual replacement, since entire teams leave with no time to document their area (and little motivation to do so)


> They can be onboarded and trained

Over a period of 6 years, until they reach 30% of the knowledge/velocity of the people who wrote the original thing. /s

Basically the company:

- hires a new engineer on the new market rate so they get up spending extra money

- spends extra time and resources to onboard the new engineer to a fraction of the productivity of the engineer that's had tenure

Over the years, I used to think that companies are taking the hit on money and productivity in order to not have "irreplaceable" engineers. Better have replaceable cogs in the machine rather than important pillars of your company, right? Workers need to know their place, even if it costs you money and productivity.

Nowadays, I just think it's the sheer incompetence and the stubborn insistence of managers in thinking that giving a new engineer the same title as the title of one of your tenured engineers will somehow magically mean they both can do the same things, at the same pace.

I used to think that kind of company behavior was calculated malice, now I believe it's simply brutal stupidity.


That's right. You can just replace all that institutional knowledge and established social network infrastructure for a cost so low it's negligible. Not worth mentioning even.

/s


> It was never a visual manifestation of a recognisable shape, it was just a sense that there was another consciousness in the room with me. I never saw machine elves or anything, I just felt strongly that there was a benevolent female presence in the corner of the room. Why I felt it was female I can't say but in the moment I was absolutely certain.

I've had trips like that but then I also had trips where I saw things like Pikachu, bees, jesters, machine elves (people-like things). But then the more I did it they got more defined and were just hallucinations of people (some were fictional characters). There was also progression from "feels like you're getting a message" -> "hearing something that's unintelligible" -> "hearing full sentences in English". I'm skeptical of the metaphysical or meaningful interpretations just because the more I did it the more nonsensical it seemed.


That is super interesting and a little scary.

Sounds similar to dreams where you tell an amazing joke or story and people are laughing uncontrollably and you feel like the funniest person in the world, then if you can recall the joke on waking it is total nonsense. Maybe it is more about transferring emotion/feeling than language.


The Sky voice was released with the first ChatGPT voices last year in September, so there's no contradiction there unless they asked her on the 1st of September and somehow trained another voice within the few weeks after she said no.

Here's a video that someone posted in October talking to the same Sky voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SamGnUqaOfU


> and somehow trained another voice within the few weeks after she said no.

Er, that is totally possible? You act like it's not a machine learning system. You train new stuff in hours or days easily, especially if you have good tooling. Imagine saying this of, say, Stable Diffusion image LoRAs: "this X artist LoRA couldn't be based on X because it was somehow trained within the few weeks after X said no!"

All the timing means is that, in good management & startup fashion, because they needed multiple voices, they had a voice pipeline going, and so could have a bunch of female voices in the pipeline for optionality. And if licensing Johansson didn't work out, you have a plan B (and C, and preferably D). This is big business, you don't do things serially or not have backups: "'hope' is not a plan".


They could do it but my point is that people are using the September rejection date as evidence for them copying her voice afterwards because it was 7 months before GPT-4o and they aren't aware that the voice has been in the app for 7 months already.


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

Search: