SlightlyLeftPad

There is no crime if you stop testing for it .. oh wait that was for something else.

It’s not worth an antitrust case when the people who have the power to stop an antitrust case gain a significant percentage of that pile of billions of dollars but I find it depends on who you ask.

I’m not contending that the cornell professor is wrong. In fact, quite the opposite really. Perhaps my point wasn’t clear. What I’m saying is that reality is fuzzy enough that a majority of the country’s CEOs (often not lawyers) continue to operate on said myth. There have been enough lawsuits, even if many end up being frivolous, the myth persists. Honestly whether or not it’s written in stone doesn’t actually matter, it’s how executives behave.

Your own citation is basically an acknowledgement of that. In particular:

> “This dogma drives directors and executives to run public firms with a relentless focus on raising stock price. In the quest to “unlock shareholder value” they sell key assets, fire loyal employees, and ruthlessly squeeze the workforce that remains; cut back on product support, customer assistance, and research and development; delay replacing outworn, outmoded, and unsafe equipment; shower CEOs with stock options and expensive pay packages to “incentivize” them; drain cash reserves to pay large dividends and repurchase company shares, leveraging firms until they teeter on the brink of insolvency; and lobby regulators and Congress to change the law so they can chase short-term profits speculating in high-risk financial derivatives.”

antitrust law can be a great tool if the government actually uses it for enforcement, which it hasn’t been because it causes parties to lose elections.

The overwhelming majority of incentives for executives is and always has been aligned with squeezing more value out of customers, in the form of increased margins, lowest possible costs with the highest prices the market will tolerate.

There are a few, I mean very few executives who stand firm on defending good faith toward customer happiness and quality. One of the only things stopping the spiral is competition. That’s why there’s an incentive to consolidate into a few massive conglomerates.

Mm not really. This has been argued so many times on HN. It’s imbued in de facto case law. You’re not going to find it in legislation.

Willingly getting sued by hostile shareholders is in itself not acting in the best interest of shareholders so while it’s not in code, it’s buried in many decades of case law and in reality it reflects the maligned incentives for companies.

Maybe his university is mandating or threatening to fire him like half of America’s corporate tech companies are.

For one, they could have could have not massively scaled back consumer memory manufacturing as a matter of duty to customers. But money and greed must prevail.

Seriously. We’re supposed to believe this AI boomer rhetoric that it won’t take jobs. In order for companies to pay for it, it must take out jobs.

Don’t forget about the public transit system continent-wide is vastly better than the US as well.

It’s frighteningly common for startups to hire 501 of the best of the best, exactly one of those will be a systems/network engineer, the other 500 will be software engineers.

A lot of times, it’s the battery age causing this issue though. Once the total battery capacity drops below 80% performance just collapses. Luckily, battery replacements aren’t totally crazy expensive and end up being worth it a lot of the time.

Ah, so eloquently stated.

Cool and all but I don’t think I’ll see this below $20-50k any time soon.

Yeah, I don’t know how to fix this but all the people I’ve heard who think we should have zero concern for AI fall into three categories: the people who stand to gain significant money/fame/power, politicians who have little idea how these things work, and the average people who parrot the first two.

You could argue that there is significant overlap between the first two but I think politicians are worth distinguishing because a) how ignorant they tend to be and b) they have significantly more influence.

People really need to start listening to the people who built these things and don’t stand to gain monetarily. It’s like ignoring climate change but potentially somehow worse.

Geoffrey Hinton himself perhaps?

It’s so well known that Oracle is such a hostile and predatory company, it’s sooo hard for me to look at this objectively.

iPhone 13 pro almost exactly 5 years old. Had the battery replaced once under warranty. I feel like all iphones these days are built like tanks. The waterproofing helps a ton.

LG washers and dryers have consistently been one of the most reliable appliances I have owned.

Other than minor design flaws like lettering that wipes off if laundry detergent contacts it (older models), that was the only issue I’ve had in 11 years.

“Super intelligence, your first task is to evaluate the leader of the free world’s intelligence.”

We may be off to a bad start. This is obviously more of a marketing/world dominance/posturing play than anything materially “Super.”

I doubt they won’t make this mistake again, and by mistake I mean not having an appropriate accountability sink in place to take the fall.

Mostly true but there is largely a massive amount of negligence in the tech industry, with a particular emphasis on shops that prioritize shipping “features.”

For every engineer that takes security seriously, there are 99 engineers that don’t. It’s an uphill battle.

Source: 25 years of experience.

All completely true statements; How long do you think before this comment gets flagged?

Not sure why this was downvoted. AstroTurf?

Anyway, this was really what I was looking for anyway. Thanks.

Where does Monsanto stand now? It’s been many years since HackerNews was AstroTurfed by them.

An ever-increasingly rare drop in my total subscription costs is a nice good will gesture. Will this mean a significant price increase in icloud+ is coming down the road? Only time will tell.

There are grounds legally if shareholders can prove that the "long-term risk reduction" argument is a lie, they can sue under the Duty of Loyalty. In reality, yes, this amounts nuisance lawsuits, large settlements and disruption at the board level. In practice, this and the executive pay structures almost always incentivizes short-term decisions and these risks become problems “for the next person.”

I wish I could any of the content in this ‘study’ is surprising. It’s obviously nothing but bad for everyone involved other than the Ellison regime. Is there a Kalshi event for whether this goes through or not? My money would be on 100% yes.

As an American, I identify more with European culture compared to 10 years ago.

I think it might be closer to this:

https://www.debtdefaultclock.us/