consumer451

Many of the "luddite" groups were funded, and in some cases entirely formed, by fossil fuel interests.

> except The Habitale Worlds Observatory Space Telescope HWO was scheduled for 2040 and now will not happen in my lifetime because DOGE got that one, Congress awarded it $150 Million and DOGE changed it to $5 Million

I was so excited for this. It was the one thing I really wanted to see happen in my own lifetime.

What a deeply moronic waste.

Well, they will stop releasing their latest models, and just attempt to eat all software themselves.

Otherwise, it will be competitors distilling, and the government getting upset.

It's hard for me to see a different future.

And, this really sucks.

If this thesis is true, I wonder what the final YC batch number might be.

If you look at the reddit thread, there is a horrific story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn#Accident_and_...

We are so far away from that even being a possibility.

We live in a world that is most corrupt and above the law, at the very top. Why would anyone trust that world? Trust is required for this technology to be willingly adopted.

That's so weird. I have never seen more fossil fuels and wood burned just for art, than at burning man.

They should have had an artist work with them to make whatever the exploration gear was, look like a permanent installation. It might not have even required actual changes, just a label.

Agreed. I now realize that my initial comment did not make my position clear.

I have to say, I wish we lived in a society where tools like Flock were not problematic, due to abuse and other factors.

However, if we lived in such a society, we wouldn't want tools like Flock to begin with.

edit: to be clear, we are far too corrupt a society to have things like Flock. The point of my comment was this irony.

OP here. I should not have used "Copernican Principle." I knew that was sloppy at the time. I wanted to use something that covered anti-human exceptionalism, except I don't know what other phrase that might be.

I totally get where you are coming from. The Rare Earth solution appears to be the answer to the Fermi Paradox. Is it really a paradox though? Maybe it was just naive to think that life should be common, because solar systems and planets are very plentiful.

Man, I could have used something like this last year.

Upon review, it appears that fumbling my way through the dark with Claude and Google led to the same place, in nearly all cases.

However, this is all written by Claude — it has too many em-dashes to not be, does it not? So, maybe that's why we ended up in the same places.

Does anyone know of any other resources in this vein?

> Why wouldn't we assume humans are special?

For me, because the Copernican Principle seems relatively undefeated.

> We've become essentially a force of nature, rather than a simple occupying species.

So are beavers, trees, plankton... they all have huge effects on the planet.

Regarding analysis of animal brains vs. human brains, the more we do, the more we find that we have in common with many other "lesser" species.

Regarding us vs. machines, I certainly believe we are just very complex and sometimes easily programmable analog machines.

This is just my 2 cents on the matter. We are pretty darn neat, but at this point I believe it would be folly to think that we are on some different incomparable plane.

I didn't take enough time to be clear. What I really meant was something like: are they giving these companies money to directly buy their own products, or to spend on other things, so that they can grow enough to be able to buy NVIDIA products?

I am not sure if the distinction makes a difference, but the latter sounds a lot more reasonable to me.

I have not been paying much attention to the whole circular deal thing that NVIDIA is supposedly doing. As in, they invest in their clients, who buy their products.

Can anyone who actually understands finance please explain a couple things to me?

1. Are those accusations are true in a significant way, and are actually a bad thing?

2. This claimed $673B in sales, how much of it comes from NVIDIA's own money, invested into their clients? Is there any way to know that?

> It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries might try.

That will be far too late. I mean, nearly the entire EU has reached record temps this year... if not now, then when? Wait until AMOC stops? Does anyone have any idea the havoc that this will create? We will be a dry arctic climate. Ireland and UK first, the rest of us next.

We need multiple Manhattan Project-level projects in the EU, for insulation + renewables + batteries. When we let Northvolt die, I almost cried. Fuck the German bankers who are somehow beholden to Moscow, and we cannot pray for Norwegian money. We need to take care of this shit.

We are more exposed to climate change and economically to China-focused manufacturing than any large group on the planet.

However, we are larger than the USA, we can do this. We have to do this.

Meanwhile, we have to get the entire planet on-board, especially by getting Moscow out of the 19th Century, and their insane imperialist ambitions.

No big deal. At the rate of Reform/AfD/KO/Rassemblement National election projections, we in Europe are entirely fucked.

What the fuck? Forget "EU regulations," is anyone actually paying attention to what actually matters?

> Why?

Well, let's say we use sulfur. For the sake of argument, let's say it's not the EU, but some private SV-funded org.

So, what is the legal/geopolitical liability for that? What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to the most insane monsoon/desertification half-century in 1 billion's people area, in known history? What then?

What if the EU's geoengineering dropped Russian temps by -2C on average? Do you realize the geopolitical b.s. that would start? Forget the fake NATO bullshit, now they have a real argument!

We live on one tiny globe ffs, we need to agree on this shit.

By agree, I mean we need to allow risk to be diversified, like we need a global risk pool for geoengineering, and we better get on that soon!

It sounds like it's a huge problem, doesn't it? Well, one of the benefits of giving all the power to around 3000 billionaire dudes is that this is a far smaller number to get to agree on something.

Instead of multi-billion citizen democracy, and all the issues that involves... we just need to convince 3000 dudes.

Is this actually a potential benefit of wealth & power concentration? It really seems like it is!

Seriously, Apple is "big tech," but they are the only one that appears to give a crap about privacy at all. And really, they put a lot of money and effort into it.

We need to give kudos when they are due.

Apple's Private Cloud Compute should have won some kind of Nobel Privacy Prize, which for some reason does not yet exist.

I agree with you. We are actually at huge risk. "Western Civilization" rose out of our stable European climate and that is over now.

However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. That's just how that works... the Jet Stream. Meanwhile one country believes that global warming is a benefit, aka Russia. They currently appear to have control of the West.. so what in the actual f?

For a far more dire diatribe:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427651

As someone in Central EU farm land, who is currently experiencing desertification...

We are actually in the worst place, given realtive population density. My well is drying up. The Danube and many other rivers are drying up.

Then, when the AMOC stops, and we join Canadian weather with English-level insulation... we are all truly fucked in winter. At scale in the mid-term, only Sri Lanka is going to get as screwed as EU citizens, but the EU will get fucked even sooner.

Given population numbers, it appears that the EU is totally screwed when it comes to climate change. Our geopolitical enemies are well aware of this fact.

There are still things we can do, like insulation, and using our fierce financial pressures to change the world. We just need to wake tf up.

Let me add one more reply here.

Even if I accepted that given the new repos: all the new code = "It's all garbage." - I would certainly love to be in a position to observe the new code + metadata = software trends, as software eats the remaining world.

I assumed that gp's post was an interstitial url.

Apologizes if I was wrong.

I posted this because this entire video is perfect satire, including the news talking heads, and they posted this video.

The interesting thing to me is how this potentially good technology has become so universally hated. Was there any way for it to ever be beneficial? If we were in a post-WWII communal state, would this have gone over better?

Such an interesting topic.

Maybe you will require less insulation reconfiguration than some other regions, but it will be hard to escape the effects of billions of people suffering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrisis

edit: To be clear, I still think there is time to react, and stop the worst impacts. We just need to get way off the rails of the route that we are currently on. If we put half of the heroic engineering + global capital that we put into fossil fuel extraction into better things, we could get most of the way to the goal. Fossil fuel extraction is like many simultaneous Manhattan Projects. It's nuts what we put into that.

Would be super cool if some of the breakout sessions titled "surviving WW III," were replaced by "avoiding WW III."

Yes, I should pull back on that. I have read that getting multiple desks in one company to agree on one position is near impossible, so my previous comment's implication was likely beyond reality.

Just being 4x leveraged on risky bets is enough for even uncoordinated market factors to eat you, correct?

Is it fair to say that SA was in r/wsb territory, with a lot more of other people's money?

Finance is not in my wheelhouse, but if I understand this situation correctly, SA's positions went way up after the assets were purchased by Citadel, correct?

The theory being is that SA not only had 4x leverage, but telegraphed their position, and the real sharks smelled the chum in the water, and then got their fill?

I am not sure I agree with you, but I will take a little odd writing given that entirely ad-free website.

Me personally, I would like to own the world's code.

The richest man in the world is interested in this dataset as well.

updated:

Confirmed. I was not able to delete this YouTube.com post.

I click the delete button, I confirm, and yet it is still on the site.

As a sanity check, I later created two posts linking to other domains and I was able to delete them.

Somehow, I am flagged by some anti-spam system into not being able to delete my own posts to only YouTube.com. However, those YouTube.com posts are public.

Is this system working as intended?

I was thinking the same thing at first: ideas to increase product limits on GitHub, to increase reliability given limited infra.

However, there are sharks in the water, and with the diminishing mean of user technical knowledge, the product actually needs to become even more free. GitHub likely needs even lower friction.

"All it takes" is the insanely heavy technical lift to support that. There is no other solution. All the C-Suite needs to do is foster an environment with well-thought through, and possibly over-funded engineering, at the edge of the art. That sounds like an amazing challenge.

> We’re living down to it.

Thank you for introducing me to this turn of phrase. I get the feeling that it will become more and more useful in the coming years.

That would just drive users into the arms of the alternatives, which would love to own the world's code... like Cursor/Musk.

Microsoft and GitHub's only option is to suck it up, absorb this growth, and lower failure rates. They have the money, so that's not the issue.

As someone on the sidelines, this is really interesting to watch unfold.