What do you mean? Are they valid flaws or not?
Would you like it to stop when there's still flaws in the code?
4,170 karma · joined December 18, 2015
Would you like it to stop when there's still flaws in the code?
That was a stated goal for them, and they got what they paid for. So good ROI on that.
They've gotten PAAAAH-LENTY for their money.
Did they get their pet asset to go up in price? No. But they managed to buy "crime is legal now". The shitcoin rugpull industry is making BANK, and the DOJ has been paid off to look the other way.
Investigations have been shut down, and mobsters have been freed. They are not the losers. Society is.
I'd read a donation with "from the oil industry" and "from The Organization Of Stealing All Copper from Public Spaces" as different types of "bad", even if I'd prefer that the oil industry also not buy politicians.
For the avoidance of doubt, blockchain people are the copper thieves.
Not fix. You just to hold your nose and do anyway, with no expectations if your experience of it ever changing.
Compensate? Not the way I think you mean it, no. Say you hate exercising or brushing your teeth. Ok. Nothing wrong with that. That's not good or bad. But you still have to do it.
Now, am I saying that only the social interaction with random strangers, that only inane smalltalk does it? Of course not.
Well, that's on you. Especially since I also added "Or getting exercise" and another clarifying paragraph after that.
> For me, being social is tiring and uncomfortable
Exactly my point. "But I don't wanna!". Yeah. That's why i compare it with taking your yucky tasting medicine, or exercising.
> I don't see a benefit.
Pearls before swine, I suppose. Shrug.
Not at all what I'm saying. You don't get cured by exercise either. You're never "done" exercising. It's just a thing you do, in order to have a long term better life.
I don't like talking to strangers. It still tastes like medicine. I have no expectation that I'll ever like it. But I still have to take my medicine, or I'll be worse off long term.
And like being sore if you've not exercised in a while, the aversion to being social is stronger after taking a "solitude vacation". But you can't not do it.
So yeah, you completely misunderstood.
You don't do it because you like it. You do it because if you don't, then you'll be worse off years later.
How's your reasoning there? You only want to be nice to people who have earned it? This sounds a bit too close to the "you have to EARN my respect", which is a hallmark of somebody nobody wants to be around.
You can only control your own actions. If your "good deeds" are conditional or transactional, then that very much diminishes their goodness.
I put my email address on these things. All spammers already have it anyway. I get some feedback.
Or a normal web form with a captcha will create minimal spam. Certainly sufficient for someone not famous.
Or you can have a google form. Either with or without google verifying the senders email address.
This reminds me of a friend of mine who in a B2B setting contacted a potential vendor by filling in a form, with his email and phone number as contact details. Instead of emailing or calling back, this vendor continued the conversation by tracking down my friend on LinkedIn and messaging him there! They already had the email and phone number from their form.
I'm also not super impressed by the consulting gig's "Johnny Holton" reference talking about Jake's "engineering excellence". A google search says Johnny Holton is an American hand egg player.
If I were a potential client going in cold then this would not fill me with confidence in his attention to detail.
"Why is nobody calling to invite me to parties", says man who unplugged his phone.
Edit: Ok, I'm old. For younger people, pretend I said "turned off his phone".
That's not an inherent web-vs-native difference, though.
> That can be an issue for native apps too, but they tend to be designed in a local-first manner
That's a choice.
> which means that they'll always have a speed advantage
woah there. No.
> assuming your typical dev team
So it comes down to the developers (and project management, etc). Yup, I 100% agree with that.
So we agree that it's not a technical difference?
No, that's a very uninformed take, and contradicted on two fronts:
1. Microsoft's other native apps have gotten unusably slow lately, too.
2. There's definitely plenty of fast web apps.
I don't mind snark, but make it factually accurate.
This is just Microsoft's poor strategic decision to try to drive as many as possible to Linux. Hell, weren't they bragging recently about managing to make opening the start menu take only a tenth of a second? It should be instant.
Maybe they think we'll replace users with AI, too. AI is the only thing slower than Microsoft's UIs lately.
It's hard. But if we make CG inescapable it should as a second order effect close the Buy Borrow Die loophole, and the super rich must fund their life some other way. Probably by selling assets to consume.
And putting a tamper on inheritance (which could be progressively taxed or capped) it has a second order effect of discouraging hoarding while alive.
So increasing inheritance tax (effectively) would mean a change of incentives for hoarding money. Which is the only thing that actually works.
Obviously, being a hard problem, there's no quick fix. But in the choice between slowing down the problem and not, we should do the former.
How do we "prevent" it? Well, we can throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is that your proposal?
As for your question: no intransigence please.
But we can start by not forgiving CG on death. That seems like a no brainer with no downsides.
No downsides I respect, at least. "We want to keep the business in the family" should be ignored.
It's an ugly ugly post, and that's what set the tone.
I hope your kids grow up to become better people than those who would write what PG wrote, and not spread lies about their interlocutors with straw man BS.
It's also an insulting post. Yeah we can add, thanks. That was never the problem. PG think math is what we were missing?
Yeah that's not better.
I'm not an AOC fan, but wow that makes PG an ugly political hack, not a clever writer.
There's no way to spin this that makes PG look good.
But PG is literally addressing the billionaire question. He's literally replying to a statement about billionaires specifically.
We're not reading too much into it.
Like I said, millionaire sure. (You could see it as another word for "successful"). Billionaire? Absolutely not, and it just sounds like you and PG are trying to change the subject, because the actual topic can't be refuted.
Or PG is so disconnected from reality that he's intentionally directly saying "I earned billions".
How many is "many"? If you meant 100 million people, then that's still just 1.2%.
And in my opinion to claim that 100 million people have the opportunity to become a billionaire is laughable. Even if you're a super genius and you do everything right, there are just WAAAY too many happy accidents (opportunities) or just lack of unfortunate events stopping you.
Like you could be born to the best parents, who can afford the best school, growing up with the best opportunity business partners, and you work your ass off and are very smart… and then there's STILL a 20% chance you're in a car accident before the age of 30[1], potentially derailing your whole trajectory.
So car accidents ALONE could take away the chance for 20% of people. Not saying a car injury is terrible, but it could be sufficient to derail the billionaire plan.
That said, you work with what you got. And become a millionaire? Sure, doable. Billionaire? You need to win several lotteries AND have skill & contentiousness, I'm sorry let's not pretend otherwise.
[1] 2.44 million people injured in traffic in the US every year (2023 data, and US traffic injury and death is skyrocketing UPWARDS thanks to the car lobby's light truck loophole, while everywhere else in the world traffic deaths are going WAY down).
How ironic. Extremely successful person tries to justify why he's better or smarter than you, and the way he does it proves that he doesn't even understand what the other person has said.
He kind of proved the point he intended to disprove.
It's not quite as bad as a lottery winner saying "anyone can earn the jackpot", but it's in that direction.
AOC wasn't even being easy to (deliberately) misunderstand, here, like Obama was when he said "you didn't build that".
Of course, like the tan suit critique, the "you didn't build that" pearl-clutchers were all arguing in bad faith.
I don't think Paul Graham is arguing in bad faith here. This post is just, for lack of a better word, "stupid".
Microsoft's LoRA (already a thing called LoRa) and now MiMo (already a thing called MIMO)
Maybe a classic Google search is not so bad, eh?
Is it? This is not entirely clear. And if it seemed the case, it's increasingly not looking realistic. It won't fully go back to normal, now that it's clear that the US is one election away from not only backing away from commitments, but itself threatening invasion of supposed allies.
A defense partner that sometimes announces that it's no longer an ally isn't really a defense partner, since The Enemy has the choice of when to attack and an understanding of game theory.
And as a reliable trading partner the US apparently has very poor guardrails for suddenly not honoring deals and established norms.
Turns out that the only checks&balances in the US political system is impeachment (which, as we know, is a political and not judicial process), and it's apparently impotent to protect against a rogue executive branch.
"This era could see the alliance seriously weakened – or irreparably changed" from the EU Parliament report "The Near-term Future of the Transatlantic Relationship". There's also https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2026/0...
RAM is really slow at silicon speeds. Very little is reachable in one clock cycle, unless the clock cycle is abysmally slow.
That said, I have been asked if I had kids, in an interview. Later in my career, when I was trained to perform interviews, I was explicitly told to NEEEEEVER ask that. And if the candidate volunteers it, to basically pretend you didn't hear it.
It's very useful if it says AI/LLM was used, then I know that there may not actually be a reason for the choice in the commit, so per Chesterton's fence I can then tear down that fence.
Now, do I need to know which brand of LLM? No. And fair enough, I'll stop being specific.