gremlinunderway

Would love to know what prompts you used for this. Anytime I've ever tried to make an LLM create funny but satirical jokes it fails terribly and comes across cringey and try-hard. This one genuinely seems funny and absurd.

I mean, in fairness these are two completely different domains. OS development and AI business intelligence are as far apart as one can get.

That being said, given the AI context, it does sound pretty shortsighted to choose an overly saturated existing name for your new product. AI agents or LLM chat bots will definitely be confused with prompts like "hey what's this graphene project?". Dunno how tthey missed that.

Sounds like to me maybe universities should stop focusing on being cash grabbing machines and instead properly teach with a useful instructor-to-student ratio?

Sorry, if your answer as to why using a beneficial pedagogical approach is your class sizes are too large, then it sounds like your class sizes are too large!

It's not meant to "encourage the rich to support" the health system, it's meant to avoid completely gutting the public health system by creating a parallel pay-for-play system where only the richest pay and subsequently suck up all of the already finite resources and talent.

Introducing parallel private health care is just accelerationism for privatization wonks who want to just see the death of universal healthcare by sucking it dry for those willing to pay.

There's no magic wand with the resources available for healthcare. Creating private systems so rich people can skip the line doesnt magically create that capability, it means taking that capability from someone who maybe needed it more in the public side of things.

Also citing Fraser Institute, a known extremely right-wing hack "think tank" is like citing a used car salesman on the benefits of buying a car. Their entire raison d'etre is to privatize any remaining public good in Canada, so they will always hunt for any kind of information or data they can to paint whatever picture they want from their lobby funds.

Oh give me a break. This argument that people's objections to advertising comes from some Pollyanna naivety over things being free is nonsense. Tell me the last time you have ever seen a company be upfront and explicitly offer a free tier where they tell you upfront exactly what they are harvesting about you and for what purpose (and no, "improving user experience" isn't being upfront) but also offer you a paid version where they explicitly promise not to do that.

"If the product is free then you are the product" is supposed to be a cautionary observation, not an axiomatic proscription.

Does anyone actually trust companies that offer paid services to not harvest their data? Whenever I see this trope I think to myself that whatever lack of regulation, oversight and enforcement lead to that being okay would equally allow for them to both take my money and harvest all my of data anyways.

This is akin to people who criticise socialised medicine or services and pejoratively characterize supporters as just wanting "free stuff", as if the concept of collective payment is naive or something

It's almost as if outside the tech bubbles most people don't understand the tech or implications. HN posters who live and breath in this space are so smug to pretend this esoteric knowledge about networking identifiers or fingerprinting is simple and that anyone can get it. These are the same people who will throw their hands up on any other esoteric topic and give up on it equally. For example, tech people so easily decry how "stupid" the law and legal jurisprudence is (because obviously if they don't understand it, it must be bullshit) but see zero irony in being smug pretentious assholes to regular people who didn't happen to major in computer science.

We shouldn't all have to be PhDs in law and jurisprudence to trust a legal system to look after our interests just like we shouldn't all have to be computer scientists to trust that technical stewards are not exploiting people's lack of knowledge.

Sick of this mentality. Oh these people are sheep idiots who don't understand the EULA euphemisms of "improved user experience " means adtech and behavioural tracking.

There's actually no continental definition in the EU constitution but yes probably in practice this is correct in terms of perception

Yeah but see, we're talking about a functionality that is inherently visual. Ergonomics has nothing to do with esthetics, and it's such a dumb excuse to hand wave aside interface issues as of they are just about "making things look pretty"

I mean, if they aren't even willing to download the one app that actually gets them the content they want to see, then *no* software will ever be something that this type of user will be interested in. Not everyone has to use an app, so why try and cater to an audience who clearly has zero interest? You're not gonna magically make it somehow even easier than "go to app store, download app" to the point that they'll use any piece of software.

I will never understand the point of teaching languages that aren't actually used. To me it just seems like its intended to be easier for the teacher rather than being beneficial for the student.

Python is already a super simple language and has enough functional plus OOP orientation that it can be used to showcase every concept and still be useful for the student.

Completely pointless...

It's because Western governments do a much better job of legitimizing their corruption or just doing it "transparently" (which makes it okay, you see?).

Best example is registered lobbying. If you have the money, you absolutely can brazenly bribe politicians and not only is it okay, in the United States its been backed by the highest courts as a form of "expression".

Bribing is okay in the West because its not bribing, its legitimized entirely with weasel words like "lobbying" or "fundraising". As long as you're "transparent" about it then its fine.

i actually don't think you can tell immediately at all. Being an expert at a thing and also being a good communicator or teacher of that thing is absolutely not the same thing.

One can be an expert on a topic and produce research, or tools, or predictions, but could be terrible at pedagogy or communicating those thoughts to those outside of the field.

People are really quick to forget that there is an entire field of study dedicated to teaching people, and the reason there is this field of study is because its a lot more complex then people would like to think. Lots of smart people fall for this trap constantly thinking that "well I'm smart, so what I say must be smart", but then completely missing that their communication or output is off the mark entirely for an intended audience. Those people tend to then just shrug it off as "well they're stupid" (on the harsh end) or "well they don't know enough about X to understand this..." (on the less harsh end) rather than ever considering "could I have delivered or explained this better"?

It is very difficult to explain complex things in simple terms. It's probably the most complex thing humans cognitively do (synthesis vs analysis). Synthesizing a complex and very dynamic system or topic into analogies that are both (a) accurate models/shapes of the original and (b) understandable for non-experts is its own challenge separate from even understanding the topic itself at an expert level.

thats not the verdict. Thats the sentencing decision, which just goes into a separate Judge's sentencing hearing and decisions on that.

No, I'm saying is that you fundamentally don't understand what "Luddism" even is or was at any point. Let me be clear. The the term "Luddite" is completely made up. The group it was supposedly based on were simply people whop opposed exploitation at the time of early industrialization. The state at the time came up with this trope of "they are against technology!" as a way to undercut that movement and impose harsh punitive measures like capital punishment for machine breaking. They weren't just self-interested / conservative people who simply went out to conserve status, employment and lifestyle by opposing technology, that's a label/strawman put on them by the British government at the time.

Just like there was no real luddism historically, there's no group of people who are just selfish people fighting against technology out of pure self-interest. This is just a strawman setup by people who don't wish to receive criticism for their own use of technology as a means of exploitation.

What about this is unique to Palantir at all? As far as I'm aware, there are many, many more companies deeply embedded with the US intelligence community and law enforcement and Palantir isn't all that special here. Microsoft, Amazon, IBM, etc. all have massive contracts directly supporting the same thing. I don't understand what makes Palantir special here.

"Neo-luddite" is thrown around by people who don't actually know history and just eat up terminology that was spoonfed to them for a purpose. FYI, the luddite movement wasn't some stupid movement against technology for the sake of being against technology like the eventual term evolved into. Historically, they were skilled artisans who were protesting exploitative working conditions and practices that came about as a result of automation. When some of them started destroying machines, the British government subsequently made it a capital crime to do machine-breaking and violently suppressed these protests and controlled the narrative that the reason luddites were breaking machines was because they were ignorant people who hated progress.

Not ironically, you're eating up the same propaganda brought to you by the likes of Thiel and co. that the people protesting legitimate grievances just simply "hate technology".

Pretending the ADL is some neutral apolitical research body of experts on antisemitism is absolutely ridiculous in 2026. Come on. They aren't any more a useful source on this then saying "the Republican Party cleared it" or "the CPAC secretariat cleared it".

This is the same org that defined antisemitism as being equivalent to criticising the State of Israel. They have zero credibility on the subject.

Also, it wasn't "the ADLs research wing did a comprehensive study and concluded it was not a Nazi salute". It was a tweet made solely by the CEO of the ADL, who has himself been criticised for turning away from civil rights and antisemitism and focusing on Israeli interests.

Re-read the beginning of the First Amendment, because it's such a common mistake that I'm surprised people still make it:

"Congress shall make no laws ... "

The first amendment bars the *government* from infringing on your free speech. It has zero standing or bearing on private citizens or corporations.

Which is why people crowing about it on social media or universities are completely oblivious to the fact that these organizations have absolutely zero responsibility to enable your free speech.

Yeah you've completely misread this. The phrase "not being a team player" is a euphemism for someone not willing to do dubiously unethical or illegal (or things that go against internal company policy) things in support of a low level supervisor or manager's wishes. Or more favourably, someone who's unwilling to do things outside of what he's actually paid for or to do things unpaid (or outside working hours etc.). Also known as wage theft.

The guy saying that he has been accused of "not being a team player" isn't literally quoting his management here. He's summarizing that his immediate supervisors don't like him because he's unwilling to enter in some patronage like relationship with them.

The fact that you gave the benefit of the doubt to some faceless employer here instead of an actual person recounting his experiences is really sad and maybe ought to be reason for you to rethink your biases to jump to the conclusion that this guy is a toxic loner. Sounds like you're projecting hard here from some other experience.

Why are you withholding the name of the webmail provider?

Literally the only thing even remotely pressuring these firms to implement better security is bad PR (and it barely does that), so by not being explicit you are bypassing this

Im confused by the supposed poor definitions of the bill that people keep pointing out. Doesn't the escape-hatch provided in the "systemic vulnerabilities" definition clearly signal that companies could absolutely refuse to implement backdoor encryption?

>(5) A core provider is not required to comply with a provision of a regulation >made under subsection (2), with respect to an electronic service, if compliance >with that provision would require the provider to introduce a systemic >vulnerability related to that service or prevent the provider from rectifying >such a vulnerability

The definition to me reads to me as very obviously blocking the government from demanding an encryption backdoor, especially since the Act allows for the company to challenge such an order in court.

>"systemic vulnerability means a vulnerability in the electronic protections of >an electronic service that creates a substantial risk that secure information >could be accessed by a person who does not have any right or authority to do >so. "

So what exactly is the problem with this definition?

What a completely asinine post. I'm sick of seemingly smart people in the technical world think they are being so clever by trying to literally rehash the continuum fallacy. You hear this literally everytime anyone even so much as suggests a standard, norm or god forbid a regulation. It seems especially common among libertarian types who think governance of any kind of simply impossible because of it.

Just because there is a gradual spectrum between two states doesn't mean we can't draw distinctions. For example, just because we cannot define the exact, precise color when blue turns into green, it does not mean that blue and green are the same color for any normal person discussing an issue publicly in good faith.

When someone says "X and Y are on a spectrum, X is good and Y is bad", the point is to highlight the differences. Pointing out that the spectrum or continuum might not have a precise boundary has literally zero weight towards the validity of the ultimate conclusion a person is making here and really is just a complete derail done by people who have no substantive points to make.

Which also means that he wasn't doing his job (management) and instead micromanaging his staff by doing their job.

This is such a common problem with highly technical managers because they can't seem to understand how to change focus or scope and do their jobs better. Instead they fall back on trying to ship features thinking that this is productive and to pat themselves on the back for staying technical.

Jesus christ this is pedantic. You do understand that not all statements can be universally distilled to true or false right? That there's nuance and opinion here right?

Yeah except you're completely misunderstanding their criticism of this entire thing. This has nothing to do with "lack of knowledge" and everything to do with criticising the premises and framing of the law in Western societies.

Talk about a complete non-issue. The amount that this actually happens beyond the anecdotes of a few reactionary people listening to to many JRE podcasts is near zero.

Besides, most places are dog-free. However, the ADA and other supporting legislation accommodates people with disabilities so this means that sometimes there's a balancing act between you enjoying a dog free experience (99% of the time) and then 1% of the time someone might have a dog with them that can detect low blood sugar for diabetes or stroke. Frankly, even if this is abused, just enabling people to have this accommodation without demanding it or disclosing medical information to strangers is worth it.

Now I'm guessing you're one of these savant medical geniuses with super powers because you can "just tell by looking at em" to determine if they're faking it. With such powers I'd recommend medical school because those powers of diagnoses are being wasted for being a pathetic reactionary who can't stand anyone different than them.

and in fairness to the mobile devices thing of abstracting file systems, when it comes to discoverability and organizing files or documents, a rigid hierarchy of nested sub-folders is far inferior to a single directory with tagging or other metadata properties you can use to filter and essentially build custom directories on the fly with.

Given this is a UI-focused repo, you really should be including some videos/gifs or at least some static images in your readme without having to run the demo. Like, I just dont get why you wouldnt? Its baffling to be quite honest. Especially given the advertisement of it being cyberpunk inspired. It's also actually quite good-looking having just loaded the demo, so you're doing it a disservice for not actively bragging or communicating how good it looks.

I'd also recommend more docs / tutorials on how to use the platform. Readme is great but when you click Documentation link you're just redirected to the readme which isnt useful and makes it seem like there is actual docs available.

It's because acompany promise is useless without actual enforced regulation which is harsh enough to actually add trust in such a contractual agreement being honoured.

This is how we have a free-market to begin with. You need enforcement and structures in place so people will actually trust any of this crap. Instead, we have the nutjob early 90's cyber libertarians thinking this will all be magically fixed with just magical freedom and the invisible hand fixing everything.