mmooss

That is the way innovation works. At first the ecosystem around it isn't mature - of course the tools haven't been needed yet - and people use that to support their claim that the innovation is fundamentally broken. The ecosystem will work itself out, usually.

It's entirely predictable: First they ridicule it; second they say it violates existing norms for how things are done; third they say they accepted it all along.

That trite saying is very real. You're describing stage 2. Stage 2 is a good signal that the development has enough power to be difficult to ridicule.

All the justification in the world won't help GOS. Do they want to be justified or do they want GOS to succeed?

At work you can say things and say them in a manner that you think is justified, or you can behave in ways that let you keep your job. I want GOS to succeed.

They're present for multiple dates at the bottom, and fade in and out. Are those dates and the fading fabricated as some sort of intermediate state and inserted into the animation? I did briefly look for something stating how the animation was made but didn't see anything.

Also, they are too regular in position and in their timeing (simultaneous) to be random noise, but could be an artifact of some part of the imaging and processing chain.

If you have a relationship with a business, try publicly denigrating them and see what the response is. Google the entity has a reputation, and that affects their revenue and reflects strongly on the people who work there - 'Google' means something on a resume.

> Early on, the team tried to balance quality with the high cost of searching many small, scattered sources. They discovered that prompting can implicitly control search depth and behavior, but only after trial and error.

I don't understand the cost here. The number of sources should be relatively tiny - it's not a general Internet search. The amount of data scraped would seem to be relatively tiny - how much data is there on suburban-county, PA?

> This sentiment isn’t too different from politics in the US right now

That's a pretty big stretch; the stakes and actors differ vastly.

> I appreciate GrapheneOS telling it like it is,

You may like it but it may hurt GOS's prospects. It deters others from working with GOS (I expect, based on common sense of the professional world), and Google has tremendous power over GOS.

Is the trade-off worth it? Is hearing what you want worth risking GOS's future, and possibly reducing its resources, distribution, and reputation?

The scrappy newcomer can say what they want - indeed, it gets attention. But once you have something worth protecting - a product and a reputation - you have competing interests: say what you want or further your product and name?

The OP denigrates Google.

From ~0:04 - 0:05, two dots at ~10 and 8 o'clock fade in and out simultaneously, with roughly the size and brightness of the planets. They peak at observation ~2016-07-06. Any idea what they are?

Their balanced position and simultaneous changes make them seem like an artifact of the imaging.

The limitation isn't access to the technology. There is endless OSS, it's probably built into many standard OSes, and there are many available products and projects that will deploy the whole thing for you.

The limitation is technical skill, even having enough skill to know that this is a solution.

> Folks would just host their own vpns various places and this would be pointless

In the real world, very few people have that capability.

If you lay it out like that, does it make what you say more true?

> the claim people here were making about "what people are saying" is false.

You were the one using that phrase.

> I did not present the Google answer as "the truth".

Oh baloney.

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, LLMs are mechanisms that report 'what people are saying'.

> you being a prisoner of the moment

? You can't go back in time either (though I don't mean to assume!). The moments we're dealing with are now and the future.

If your argument is, 'they did it before therefore it's a good idea or ok now', I don't know what to say to you. Perhaps you are a prisoner of the past, which prevents us from moving forward.

I wonder why Apple, with its resources, doesn't take the lawfare approach to someone attacking its phones, for profit, and damaging its reputation.

It seems to me you are taking a big risk. Some considerations:

> Cryptomator

Much security is poorly implemented; you can't count on it being effective. Even Apple, which takes security very seriously and has world-class talent and enormous resources, fails to implement security effectively sometimes (as in the OP). Can Cryptomator do better? Find the most respected - by professionals - security solution you can.

And on a device with many other functions - all the things you use your phone for - you risk all sorts of security holes in every function of app you use. And what happens to the data when your phone is backed up? Store the data on a single-purpose device.

Also, on an Internet-connected device, you make the data potentially accessible to the entire Internet. Use offline storage.

Bringing the storage device with you everywhere is asking for a mistake on your part - losing it, etc. Hide it someplace.

> or legal access

Ask a lawyer.

It would depend on the country.

> Vote out all the incumbents.

If you vote out all the incumbents then you encourage them to ignore you. You will vote against them whether they support, ignore, or oppose what you want. Also, removing the people who agree with you makes it harder to form a majority for your cause.

> technologies the US managed to deploy decades before the competition

We don't know that. The competition (USSR/Russia) also keeps secrets, and not being a free society, has much less reason to publish them later.

Griffin is / will be on CMU's board.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/30/us/3-billion-donation-car...

Your comment is interesting: It fits well enough in one group's political talking points - anti-regulation, anti-liberal, revisionist information, absolute and not weighing costs and benefits - that it makes me quite skeptical. Add a YouTube video as a source and it crosses a threshold for me.

That doesn't make it wrong!

> Do you have any evidence for your claim?

No; you agree it's a well-known claim. I've never heard what you say (that I recall). Including the GGP claim that most aren't subsidized.

Absolutely!

People giving you money often want something in return. If the something is unstated, be very suspicious. For $3B you could be giving them something priceless - your reputation, independence, or merely your soul. Big numbers tend to blind people; the bigger the number the more wary you should be.

The most fundamental negotiating advice is that you should always be willing and able to walk away from the deal. 'No' is always an option.

Academic and intellectual freedom would seem to be major questions given the size of the gift and the location:

And are they academically and intellectually free from Griffin? Can CMU itself or their Florida school do things and have programs that violate Griffin's beliefs?

And I wonder how CMU intends to handle the limits to academic freedom and other l freedoms in Florida. Maybe being a private university will insulate them? At the heart of this issue: Why is it important to Griffin to put the school in Miami, FL? There are obvious political possibilities.

Freedom isn't incidental; it's the core of what America is and it drives unprecedented innovation and prosperity, among other things.

Also, as someone else posted: How much is this a CMU campus, and how much a Griffin campus for which he paid to use the CMU name?

Andrew Carnegie no longer has power or influence, so it doesn't matter. Griffin has both, and the school enhances it and becomes a vehicle for it. Will the Miami campus be free to violate Griffin's beliefs? Are 'woke' educational programs allowed?

Do you mean, with the naked eye? It needs to be quite dark - minimal light pollution.

Then some satellites look like stars that move relative to the actual stars. It's not too hard to find one with a bit of patience. It's pretty amazing.

Thanks. Do you know if that that includes initial costs like construction - have they paid for themselves?

> performative incompetence is appealing?

I've wondered about that. Similarly, it's disruptive to the authority of the courts, judicial system, etc. It shows contempt.

That's counter to everything I've read. Any evidence?

> the largest impediment to safe and profitable nuclear reactors is regulatory

I don't know any evidence of that. My understanding is that it's a highly complex technology, many components unavoidably take a long time to construct, and it may be fundamentally uneconomic.

Has anyone, anywhere in the world profitably (subtracting subsidies) constructed one?