I don't see it. It's a tree that people have sex on. Gay sex, though from the looks of it the tree would be equally well suited for lesbian or straight sex. Presumably one person lies on their stomach on the trunk while one or more people perform penetrative acts. Where is the euphemism? And what is weird about listing this on wikipedia?
I wonder if it has been ruined by becoming well known.
It is sort of funny—based on the Wikipedia they put up notices to stop people from having sex there, which didn’t work. They should have advertised it instead, maybe, the surest way of ruining something niche is to let everybody know about it.
I had "DHL" and was wondering who let them organise ID in the USA. Yet, since I believed that, I did appear to have found this idea plausible.
Department of Homeland Security makes a lot more sense, but as a non-American, is not an acronym I am familiar with.
As a continental European, I do find the ick Anglo countries have with ID weird. Especially if you throw ICE and immigrants into the mix, the whole thing seems designed for collateral damage.
Interesting -- I'm a Brit and have that ick, I can't really understand people who don't: that agents of the state can demand "papers please" fills me with foreboding, particularly given recent European history. That in the UK you can reply "no thanks" and walk away is one of few things I like about the place.
Indeed we already feed them insects and we don't powder them. You can purchase bags of dried meal worms at the feed store. The carcasses are fully intact.
"The compiler" and "The optimizer" are doing a lot of the heavy lifting here in the argument. I definitely know compilers and optimizers which are not that great. Then again, they are not turning C++ code into ARM instructions.
You absolutely can fool a lot of compilers out there! And I am not only looking at you, NVCC.
But the point should be to follow the optimization cycle: develop, benchmark, evaluate, profile, analyze, optimize. Writing performant code is no joke and very often destroys readability and introduces subtle bugs, so before trying to oursmart the compiler, evaluate if what it produces is good enough already
People need to understand that OpenAI is not a publicly traded company. Sam is allowed to be outrageously optimistic about his best case scenarios, as long as he is correct with OpenAI's investors. But those investors are not "the public", so he can publicly state pretty much anything he wants, as long as it is not contradicting facts.
So he cannot say "OpenAI made 20B profit last year." but can say "OpenAI will make 20B revenue next year." Optimism is not a crime.
To further clarify, this is the research (from August 2025) which is cited in the CNN story which is the basis of the Dagens AI copypasta. "Shutdown of northern Atlantic overturning after 2100 following deep mixing collapse in CMIP6 projections".
The paper I cite is for sea level rise. IPCC models from 1990 and 2011 have made forecasts on sea level rise. When we compare those to what actually happened up to 2025, we see that we are slightly worse right now than their highest sea level prediction that was made.
We're worse than their worst case scenario, so their models were significantly too optimistic.
In the same paper, they also note that for temperature, the models have been accurate.
> When we compare those to what actually happened up to 2025, we see that we are slightly worse right now than their highest sea level prediction that was made.
No. The paper does not show that. Figure 3 shows that recent sea level rise, accounting for measurement uncertainty, is in line with projections of any of the models (around 2mm per year). In any case, they call out explicitly that the recent data is of insufficient duration to make the comparison you’re trying to make.
Temperature data in figure one is more or less exactly in the uncertainty window of the models (not shocking, considering that they’re calibrated to reproduce recent data).
I'm sorry, but I double checked and I do think you have it wrong. Figure 3 is for "sea level rise _rate_", and that one is indeed high but not significantly so.
Quoting "The satellite-based linear trend 1993–2011 is 3.2±
0.5 mm yr−1
, which is 60% faster than the best IPCC estimate
of 2.0 mm yr−1
for the same interval"
But, as the authors point out, the worst case forecasts that were within-data, are so for the wrong reasons. Quote "The model(s) defining the upper 95-percentile might
not get the right answer for the right reasons, but possibly by
overestimating past temperature rise."
My previous comment is regarding Figure 2, i.e. "Sea Level". I would invite you to read the whole paper. It is only 3 pages and written without jargon.
Sea level rise rate is what matters (we cannot measure “sea level” absolutely, and therefore must work in terms of relative rates of change). The authors explicitly tell you that the data is not sufficient to conclude what they’re alluding:
> this period is too short to determine meaningful changes in the rate of rise
Now, you note that the authors openly acknowledge that the rate of rise is measured in low-single-digit units of millimeters per year. So, why is the y-axis of Figure 2 measured in centimeters?
Hint: it’s because every point on that plot is a wild extrapolation.
This paper is not good, btw. The fact that it’s “only three pages” should be a blinking red sign telling you that it is not serious. Just read the more recent IPCC reports, because they deal with the question of updates from prior reports.
The plot you're citing is an imaginary projection 100 years into the future given what was known up to the year on the x-axis. That is why the units are 100x larger.
The uncertainty on the rate of change is quite large (relatively), therefore, any 100 year projection has huge, compounded uncertainty. Figure 2 is not useful for determining anything about the present.
No you can't. That study is comparing past estimates of the past and present to the lived in past and present not past estimates of the future to current estimates of the future.
Okay, but why then do the IPCC reports of the past present vastly different historical data than the present ones? History cannot change, but people can "reinterpret" it for political purposes.
Humans didn't exist since the beginning of time, and we only started to properly record temperatures in the last few centuries. That means we have to determine historical data through the effects it had on our planet. The methods to find this historical data from the effects keep changing and evolving, so it makes complete sense to me that historical data has changed throughout the reports.
Unfortunately you didn't specify where one can find this "vastly different historical data", so I can't get more specific than this.
And the EU apparently has the counter ready, which would make such companies liable for millions when they enact US sanctions in the EU.
I'm very curious what would happen then? Nothing presumable, as nothing ever happens, or it might be another step to separate the EU market from the US.
Good. We've been in the age of super national global corporations living playing fast and loose. Maybe this will keep them from gobbling up even more power.
No, it won't. And lashing out with random shots in the dark tends to advance corporate control, as we've seen with the results from the trumpist tantrum. As long as ownership (/controlling interest) of companies continues to be basically unregulated cross-border (because the class of people having it also have the ears (if not the necks) of politicians), then things like sanctions are merely speed bumps on commerce that increase large-scale market friction and thereby increase the domestic power of corpos.
The article continues that he asks for the EU to activate an existing blocking regulation (Regulation (EC) No 2271/96), which prevents third countries like the USA from enforcing sanctions in the EU. Activating it would make American companies following US sanction in Europe liable for damages.
I think that is the most important point in the article.
Every now and then, topics on HN are being brigaded by (among others) such accounts. But to do that effectively, you need to build a sizeable amount of accounts with some karma, and I think that's what is tried here with an LLM.
In Figure 13, there are some Western countries listed for how much children can roam, and Ireland is indeed near the bottom.
But the Netherlands, Nordics and Germany are still very much on the other side of the spectrum in these studies.
See for instance the books "The Happiest Kids in the World", "Achtung Baby" and "There is No Such Thing as Bad Weather" about raising children in the Netherlands, Berlin and Sweden respectively.
Those places are very much not like the USA yet. Though as the article points out, they are definitely going in that direction.
By the way the rest of the (actual) saying that is the title for the Swedish book is "Only Bad Clothes". In Swedish it rhymes [1] which of course increases its power. I know it from when I was a kid 40+ years ago, and I think both my kids would recognize it or at least get the meaning.
That being said, obviously mobile phones etc are huge and (in my opinion) problematic among kids here, too.
> Those places are very much not like the USA yet. Though as the article points out, they are definitely going in that direction.
In the Netherlands, some things are trending in that direction (e.g. car sizes/hood heights), but I wouldn't call it a general trend; infrastructure, for one, is still massively improving. Where it was bicycle-friendly twenty years ago, it's way more so today, and bound to be even more so tomorrow.
It’s not a foregone conclusion though, in addition to higher and blunter hoods there’s just more cars (over ten million now), and the EU may recognise US safety standards in trade negotiations. Not that the latter matters when you can import violating vehicles (like Dodge Rams) under individual vehicle approval.
The Netherlands is in danger of resting on its laurels and getting complacent. Some places (Hilversum comes to mind) are still quite mediocre.
No, I indeed wouldn't say it's bound to end up in a good place - just that it's too pessimistic a view to think that it's generally trending in the wrong direction. We're seeing all the bad signs we're seeing elsewhere, but also many of the good ones, such as entire new car-free neighbourhoods being built.
[1] https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/07/hampstead-heaths-...
reply