deaux

A good majority of the Americans want Epstein's best buddies' jailed, instead the POTUS is one.

> by saying things like terrorism is in the eye of the beholder

This is so trivially true that it's not worth bringing up in discussoon with anyone who can be taken seriously. It's true for any politically charged word, and terrorism is one of the most political words in the English language.

> Seems like the best way around this is... don't do business with terrorists?

Do you do any business with the US government? Potentially even supporting them financially through taxes? Why are you doing business with terrorists?

In EU countries with independent court systems, those EU governments routinely ignore court decisions they don't like. I did a very deep dive into this. There is no European country where checks and balances consistently, properly work.

Surprisingly enough among EU countries, Austria gets relatively close to adherence. Canada is likely the best at it globally (and yes, that takes into account "notwithstanding").

FYI the ones you named include ones priced exactly the same as Uber. Uber doesn't take the same cut in every country.

OpenAI had such a disaster themselves before, GPT-4, so they replaced it with 4o.

> Not a theory. It's literally the law.

It is not, which is why you've failed to show that law, or indeed any cases in the last 50 years of companies having been successfully sued for such a thing.

It's honestly so obvious that this couldn't be the law that I can't assume good faith here. It's completely untenable as a principle, it wouldn't be possible to run a business if it were the law. Imagine what that law would look like. Would it be short term profit maximization? Would it be long term? What would that term be?

You're literally saying that there's a law that would ask judges to decide whether business decision X maximizes Y-term profit. A child could see how that would be impossible. It's asking for a fortune teller on a subject that is inherently very volatile. The whole point of running a business is believing that you can make decisions that you think are right to succeed. If this were real, you'd genuinely see companies running from the US because it'd be untenable to run a business there.

This is the worst case of FUD I've seen on HN bar none, because it's one person being so persistent about a complete myth.

They aren't, and as such, deciding to forego short-term profit by making sustainable decisions and practices is of course not illegal whatsoever, nor does any company ever get sued for it.

This is absolutely not true. Your link is focused on the UK, the "interests of the company" are independent of "the interests of shareholders", and the duties/breaches listed there revolve around betraying the company (not shareholders) for individual gain. Insider trading, embezzlement, leaking, conflicts of interests. Nothing at all like "making a decision that prioritizes morals over short-term profits".

We're now entering complete FUD territory. Firstly your link is aimed at the UK. This thread started about Google and talked about the US. But hey, let's imagine it's focused on the US.

Let me quote what you were claiming:

> the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

Yet now you're saying yourself:

> failing to advance specifically the company's interests

You silently swapped the "stockholder's" interests - which is what this thread, and the oft mentioned "fiduciary duty", are about - for the "company's" interests. In this legal context, these are two very different things.

And then if you actually read the duties they list (i.e. the ones to the company, not the shareholders) and the breaches they talk about, it's stuff like self-dealing, conflicted transactions, usurping corporate opportunities, securities law violation. This has nothing to do with making business decisions in order to prioritize short-term shareholder value.

> I personally actively filter out companies who don't use Slack. The way communication is done in a company reflects practically every company decision. (Conway's Law)

Do you actually mean "don't use Slack" or actually just "use Teams"? If the former, I don't think that makes a lot of sense unless you own a lot of Salesforce stock. There's a number of Slack alternatives that pretty much deliver the same experience.

No , you're spreading misinformation [0]. The company's board does not have a legal obligation to "act in the interest of stockholders regardless of moral impact" in any meaningful manner. Anything, including "positive moral impact", can be spun as being in the interest of shareholders. What you're implying is a legal duty towards short-term profit maximization. Absolutely nothing of the sort exists.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975048

There are tens of thousands of those, yes. Pretending these don't exist, edgy nihilism much?

Strictly speaking, no. If you're going to play semantics, you first need to define how "unintended" is "unintended". If I drive down the highway at 200mph and get someone killed, is this unintentional? Now what if I do so in a crowded street? If I'm sending a missile at a country, how much effort do I need to put into research to be able to say it was "collateral" damage? If I aim them completely randomly, then what's the verdict?

If you're going to go down the semantics route, every word needs proper inspection. You're focusing on only one of them, "terrorism".

Luckily though, we don't need to; the US does more than enough intentional extrajudicial executions of civilians on its own. Even just considering one particular area where it does them, and then only the ones we know about, we're at about 227 civilian executions in just the last few years [0].

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/10/29/us/us-caribbe...

You're not suggesting that most, if not all of these, are things the US hasn't done, are you? Surely not. The one you might try and dispute is the "50,000 protestors" one, as you know the other ones are clear as day.

> I think its likely they do have sympathy for violent groups

The US regime is an extremely violent group, so I that's certainly the issue.

> If they choose to support the PKK, which the EU, UK, and US have all deemed a terrorist organization for over 20 years, then of course the US should sanction them and they have no moral ground to stand on.

No moral ground to stand on? Would you say that about Amazon who supports the US regime, which is in the business of bombing Iranian schoolgirls? Is that less terrorist?

This collective of course has much more of a moral ground to stand on than indeed Amazon.

> Much more capable than the top SOTA models from 12 months

Confidently wrong here. It's absolutely not across the board "more capable" than GPT 5 or Opus 4.1 or even Gemini 2.5 Pro. It's potentially better at certain specific tasks, mostly agentic coding implementation work. I.e. tool calling and usage of bash. It's worse at a large range of other tasks.

> claude fable is better at writing both code and prose than smaller code- and prose-specific models.

There's a million ways to define "better at writing prose", and it's only better at some of them. It's worse at many others.

Back in the day the business backing this platform wasn't incubating companies like Flock (YC S17). I think the increased focus on "moneymaxxing" in the community reflects a similar change by its owners.

> Who did Obama sick the DOJ on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Government_...

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

> And FWIW, most economists think retaliatory tariffs are stupid - on net they cause more harm to the retaliating country than if there were no retaliation.

This is wrong, because you're using the extremely broad concept of "harm" for a specific monetary loss. There are many more things at play here than just money gained/lost.

"I am a freedom fighter, you are a rebel, and he is a terrorist."

Going against the US regime means you're a terrorist. If you instead bomb a "terrorist nation", i.e. "a nation not aligned with the US regime"'s schoolgirls, you're a freedom fighter.

Right, so after already ramping up mass surveillance to the level of China [0], now the gap in freedom of political expression gap is also rapidly closing. Soon, there will be no gaps left, and it will just be worse in every single way imaginable. Until that day though, people will just keep pointing to those remaining gaps, one at a time. So that they can conveniently be taken away.

If you're not American, and have even a shred of moral fiber left in your body, I really recommend you don't come here. What awaits you in terms of Silicon Valley jobs is a choice of AI labs, AI wrapper startups, and Andreessen Horowitz-funded startups; this is 99% of fresh SV jobs. Beauties like Flock, Toka (hacking security cam footage), Doublespeed (AI influencer account botting), Civitai (30k deepfake models of real women), Cluely (cheat on everything), Coverd (betting on your bills), Cheddr (TikTok of sports betting), Ex-Human (have "adult" chats with bots mimicking underage celebs), and another hundred or so of such lovely products. All of these are a16z backed, and their tendrils are in every SV company out there. Stay in your country. If you're too thirsty for money to stay but still have some morals left, go to China, they're pretty much single-handedly driving the only thing left that gives humanity a chance of avoiding extinction; the transition to renewable energy.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5752369/ice-surveillanc...

Huh? Read plenty of threads here on M series releases, never saw any.

I do see them on "Certified Apple Polishing Cloth" threads because, y'know, such comments kinda make sense for this particular product.

25 day old account, very first comment about using US models because you can't trust China? Be gone russian bot

@TRACK: yipinwong

Just kidding but seriously man, this level of paranoia isn't healthy. Try talking about it with someone you trust. The comment you're replying to is completely normal.

> Between Chinese values and American values which do we prefer?

To anyone in a third-party country, it's incredible that someone still says this without any doubts in their minds about a country whose regime leader is Jeffrey Epstein's best friend and a known PDF. He was voted in by public support. Which values is this compatible with?

Does that mean China's "values" are better? No, but it means it's at the very least not clear cut at all, and you're still pretending that it is. I get that this is due to indoctrination from since you were young, but you're now an adult and need to come to terms with the idea that these things are now far from black and white. It's like a French person saying "the Germans are much closer to our values than the Russians" in 1933. I'm sure you would've said that.

> When a Canadian new grad is faced with an option of going to work in SV or in China which do they prefer?

One who wants to positively contribute to the future of humanity? Realistically, by far the biggest lever to do this is the transition to renewable energy, and by now effectively all of this is done in China. In SV a modern new grad's choices in 2026 are basically working at an AI lab or AI wrapper startup. That's 90% of current SV new grad positions.

> The countries who jail CEOs who due “societal damage” as a fuzzy cultural concept, as opposed to jailing CEOs according to the law, are not legal systems you want to imitate.

The US doesn't jail people according to the law and does not have a legal system you want to imitate.

> The US does jail CEOs who commit crimes. Social media just has a short memory for topics like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, or even recent topics like Theranos and FTX.

Yes, the US jails CEOs that defraud investors, i.e. the powerful. This is a direct application of the fuzzy concepts that the US uses when deciding whether to jail someone.

A company is made up out of people. Some are made up out of people with morals (yes, these exist). Those companies have morals. Some, like Meta, consist of people with no morals. Those companies have no morals.

It's funny isn't it, what the word China triggers in people. They'll say that the US is going down the gutter, but then the very next sentence if China is mentioned, it's all "we have rule of law, we're a just, democratic, lawful country, unlike them". There's still far too much pride.