> The species formerly known as Brachiosaurus brancai was reassigned to its own genus, *Giraffatitan*, through a series of taxonomic revisions. The key steps were:
> 1. *Initial Proposal (1988):*
Gregory S. Paul first suggested separating B. brancai from Brachiosaurus in 1988, proposing the informal name "Giraffatitan" as a subgenus. However, this was not widely accepted at the time.
> 2. *Formal Reclassification (2009):*
Paleontologist *Michael P. Taylor* conducted a detailed comparative study of Brachiosaurus specimens. In his 2009 paper, he formally elevated B. brancai to the full genus *Giraffatitan brancai*, citing significant anatomical differences (e.g., limb proportions, vertebral structures) from the North American Brachiosaurus altithorax.
> Thus, *Michael P. Taylor* is credited with the formal reassignment of the species to the genus Giraffatitan in *2009*.
I can tell just from looking at most recent YC founders that they're not hackers.
I could be wrong of course. I'm probably wrong. Maybe these people who are attractive, care about popular fashion and becoming popular on tweeter are actually just as capable hackers as all the hackers I actually know (none of whom care about those things). I admit YC probably knows better than me.
But if I'm not wrong, and these people really aren't hackers, it means YC has decided that normies > hackers when it comes to YC. I really don't predict that's going to end well for YC.
I mean, obviously it's a numbers game. There are only so many hackers, but there are a lot of Ivy League people and FANG people. So YC chose to open their gates. Whether this will be a profitable decision is an open question.
LLMs are already better than books for exploring some ideas. But in conversation form.
Until we get better versions of o1 that can generate insights over days and then communicate them in book form the loss of interactivity and personalisation makes LLM books pointless.
An interactive conversation / tutorial session beats a book pretty much all of the time. Nonfiction books contain a lot of information that's redundant to a reader familiar with the topic, and not enough for someone new. They don't backtrack if you clearly missed an important point. And so on. It's like fractal geometry.
If an AI agent understands you (and book writing, and the topic of the book) well enough then it should be able to write you a pretty nice bespoke book.
I do suspect that interactive media is just strictly better in theory. But maybe there will be a period of time where bespoke AI-generated books make sense.
The problem is a whole book worth is a long time to go between feedback and questions. I don't see how the agent would know the reader that well, knowledge is embedded in the brain and only comes out when prompted.
Why buy stakes and not the whole thing to block your competitors from making deals with them? This is big corp 101 and has happened countless times. It's even more likely if OpenAI is to be a $7T company in the future. Such an acquisition would be approved in a second... if the hype was real.
I think it's substantial to say that AI is currently overhyped because it's hitting a weak spot in human cognition. We sympathize with inanimate objects. We see faces in random patterns.
If a machine spits out some plausible looking text (or some cookie-cutter code copy-pasted from Stack Overflow) the human brain is basically hardwired to go "wow this is a human friend!". The current LLM trend seems designed to capitalize on this tendency towards sympathizing.
This is the same thing that made chatbots seem amazing 30 years ago. There's a minimum amount of "humanness" you have to put in the text and then the recipient fills in the blanks.
But if nearly everyone else is saying this has real value to them and it's produced meaningful code way beyond what's in SO, then doesn't that just mean your experience isn't representative of the overall value of LLMs?
I feel like it’s reasonable to expect a brand to be aware if some organization, even Mossad, placed explosives in 5000 of their items.
It means this company is incompetent and should not be trusted. It’s one thing to have malware injected into software (pretty bad) and another to have physical explosives put into your product.
So if someone steals a box of iphones, adds a few grams of explosives inside each phone, and then resells them or gives them away, then Apple is at fault?
If you buy the boxes from an Apple store, or from an approved distributor, Apple is at fault. What's the meaning of "approved"?
If you buy them from the back of a truck, then no, Apple has no fault of course.
But there's a declaration saying "we had nothing to do with the pagers even though they have our brand". That's different from saying "they were booby-trapped after they left our hands". Not even the company itself is claiming the defense you're using.
The problem is that the company which did the rigging seems to have had an official license. If apple gave away licenses to build things branded apple and they contained explosives, I would blame apple, too.
But the best that they can realistically do, once they've found out about the shenanigans, is to cancel the licensing deal with the Hungarian manufacturer. Which they probably will. Maybe sue them in a Hungarian court, if there's anybody left to sue.
Every brand in the world is now expected to have the ability to detect and thwart intelligence operations run by Mossad? Like, a yoghurt company needs to have a counter intelligence division?
I think they should have some control over their manufacturing. It’s not so much that the yogurt company has a counter intelligence division, it’s that the yogurt company didn’t detect someone putting poison into a few hundred truckloads.
I expect brands to have quality control procedures in place.
Selling your own parts to be restamped as another brand is common though. Selling your brand to be stamped on someone else's parts is basically only useful to do this exact thing though.
Why would you say that? Many everyday products are produced under license or franchise with the brand having minimal involvement in the entire process. Even if apollo had done qc in the factory it would be easy to trick them.
Manufacturers for certain categories of products are homogenized, often regionally, whereas the brands maybe many.
Plus, clandestine supply chain attacks fall into 2 categories:
- A. With manufacturer/reseller complicity. (Not many manufacturers choose this because it would harm their business.)
- B. Without manufacturer/reseller complicity, but with logistics interception for sw/hw implants or complete substitution. (This is the method NSA TAO used to load implants into Cisco gear.)
DeepSeek R1 gets it right:
> The species formerly known as Brachiosaurus brancai was reassigned to its own genus, *Giraffatitan*, through a series of taxonomic revisions. The key steps were:
> 1. *Initial Proposal (1988):* Gregory S. Paul first suggested separating B. brancai from Brachiosaurus in 1988, proposing the informal name "Giraffatitan" as a subgenus. However, this was not widely accepted at the time.
> 2. *Formal Reclassification (2009):* Paleontologist *Michael P. Taylor* conducted a detailed comparative study of Brachiosaurus specimens. In his 2009 paper, he formally elevated B. brancai to the full genus *Giraffatitan brancai*, citing significant anatomical differences (e.g., limb proportions, vertebral structures) from the North American Brachiosaurus altithorax.
> Thus, *Michael P. Taylor* is credited with the formal reassignment of the species to the genus Giraffatitan in *2009*.