adamiscool8

Literally all it takes - why would you ever believe otherwise? Marketing?

>a handful of federal agencies confirmed earlier this month in court documents that they cut grants if researchers’ projects “expressed, or were presumed to express, viewpoints disfavored by the Administration.”

Why is this bad? The Administration is democratically elected so nominally represents the viewpoints of the majority people - why should taxpayer funding go to disfavored research?

>The UC researchers allege the grant terminations violated their First Amendment rights by targeting their work based on viewpoint and subject matter and have asked the federal judge overseeing the case to rule the revocations unconstitutional.

More weird fascist technocratic fantasies from academia. Why would you be constitutionally entitled to continued public funding?

Shows that — as always — the moat is domain fluency.

Zuck was in roughly the same position and they didn’t put out a statement skipping that IPO. The valuation criticism is more valid but this line belies political motivation.

Can you give a specific example, ideally that would not have been solved by people-hours amounting to less than the token costs?

Agree, but the average user trusts the AI knowledge box as expert summary, even though clicking through often reveals contrary information, so this is going to be a net negative overall for a while…

It was a public safety disaster that the country is still trying to recover from.

In Canada, for most of the 20th century until maybe 15 years ago, your PII was in a big book that lived at everybody's house and the library unless you specifically opted out.

"Once you've been to [the Netscape ISP Homepage], you'll never stop wanting to beat [front-end Javascript frameworks] to death with your bare hands."

After thousands of years of research we still don’t fully understand how humans do it, so what reason (besides a sort of naked techno-optimism) is there to believe we will ever be able to replicate the behavior in machines?

The title framing is weird when the report says maybe 5% of the 1250 were civilians, and the same rights group also reports more than 1500 civilians [0] killed over the same period in the horrific and rampant gang violence the government is using this technology to fight against.

[0] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2026/country-chapters/haiti

Even as we speak, Ayatollah Razmara and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power!

Hopefully they embrace AI. 800 episodes is such a rich corpus and there could be such bright-line guardrails in a "Springfield style guide". If AI can replicate the 90's Golden Era through voice cloning + an intentional hand-drawn cel animation quality aesthetic, I would unironically love to create my own AI-generated episodes from a random premise.

0.1% of users is not necessarily 0.1% of conversations…

Just realizing that in more than a decade of perusing Hacker News, I may not have ever visited the homepage.

Two years ago the same party that currently holds Canadian government and just made these concessions to China completed a report [0] that found

>[China’s actions] collectively "undermine our democratic institutions, our fundamental rights and freedoms, our social cohesion and our long-term prosperity.”[343] [and] the need to consider the threats in the context of an increasingly assertive PRC. Accordingly, Minister Garneau stated that various countries, including Canada, are reassessing their relationship with the PRC in light of its authoritarian and coercive actions.

But yeah a little chirping about Canada’s own unfair trade practices must be DEFCON 3 for US-Canada relations.

[0] https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/CACN/report...

Better how?

Ragebait would be trying to argue that China running secret police and propaganda operations on Canadian soil, against Canadian citizens, is in any way equivalent to a domestic force taking actions primarily against foreign nationals, in a statutorily authorized way within a legal framework that can be challenged.

It’s a good thing Canada waited for China to resolve all these issues before swinging open our market doors to them.

The offset is not positive when you factor in the externalities that go into escalating Chinese EV production.

China and their famously steady temperament would never be so bold as to try to own a dependent country or strategically weaponize trade. These are real things Canadians believe - talk about eye opening!

Except those actions are not secret, nor illegal, nor a threat to any other country’s sovereignty?

Nothing to do with “unfair, non-market policies and practices […] and China’s intentional, state-directed policy of overcapacity and lack of rigorous labour and environmental standards”? I suppose that doesn’t even register anymore to the average selectively outraged parochial Canadian.

[0] https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2024/08/can...

Did ICE have clandestine police stations in Canada trying to rendition political dissidents? People need to get a grip and some perspective.

The accountability and scale are hugely different to the point I don’t see how anyone can make this argument in good faith.

>We’ve looked at how our teams work best, and the data is clear: when people work together in person more often, they thrive — they are more energized, empowered, and they deliver stronger results.

Citation needed or this is just more vibe-xecutive decree.

This is right but missing that the goal of these corporate cultural proclamations is optimizing for people who are true believers in the mission. Whether that leads to better business outcomes than optimizing for really smart people who believe in work-life balance… I personally doubt.

Yes, optimizations of this form can work to manage tail risk on an edge and can reproducibly lift expectancy for a strategy. GP is essentially claiming no positive edge can exist, which is false - though these edges may be short-lived and dependent on particular market regimes.

In general, yes - no edge is forever. But that doesn't mean trading is a coin flip where no edge can exist. The market is adaptive because humans are adaptive - but, for example, their machine offspring are often slightly less adaptive and create opportunities for persistent returns. Even more so for most retail where your position size isn't creating slippage.

All of these points are irrelevant. If you have the data that shows 99.5% win rate, you would have the data on your expected win size, and could compute a fixed loss stop that would keep you on-side. In the example, which I'm assuming must be hyperbolic, your average win would only need to stay >1/199th of your average loss. I would agree that if a person cannot manage their positions to this, that person should stick to investing.