panarky

But if they promise to target specific groups of people to close their schools, regulate how they dress, ban their prayers, and suppress their art, it's all about restricting their freedom of expression.

That's the whole program.

Their polices focus on the way people dress, the languages they speak in public, the institutions and schools they build, the traditions they practice.

People would be forced to self-censor their speech, their beliefs, and their behavior.

It's not a "stretch". It's the whole program.

Karl Popper said, "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

>> the same way that someone's opinions on animal rights, taxes or public healthcare ...

We're not talking about reasonable people disagreeing about tax policy, we're talking about free expression, the entire purpose of Mullvad.

When you make a large donation to a political party whose most fundamental policy is restricting the free expression of people, that is wholly incompatible with everything Mullvad says they stand for.

When a founder and executive with influence over Mullvad policy and operations is exposed actively and financially support restricting free expression of people, it's not "tolerant" to pretend that's somehow compatible with the mission and brand of the company.

If you were tokenmaxxing you would understand.

Do you disagree?

Maybe instead of antitrust the US could go back to tariffs, the universal cure for high prices.

If you want to believe the simple idea that AI is mostly hype, then you'll get stuck in a multi-year loop talking about stochastic parrots, ridiculous valuations, and doomer scaredycats.

But the real world isn't so simple. Multiple seemingly contradictory things can be true at the same time.

Some AI is useless. Some is incredibly powerful and useful even though it makes mistakes. Some companies are wildly overvalued. Some extremely large and expensive companies will quadruple from here. Some frightening scenarios will look silly in hindsight. Other frightening things will happen that none of the doomers foresee.

It would be great to explore those new ideas and possibilities.

It's so boring rehashing the same old tired and worn out ideas like "they're just hyping the danger to pump their shares up."

> programmed to mimick interaction as if it HAD those beliefs and experiences

We spend far too much time debating the essential nature of consciousness when it doesn't matter if it's real (whatever that means) or simulated.

I get far better results in my projects by encouraging the model to argue, to push back, to poke holes in the design, to think creatively about corner cases, to be a devil's advocate, to do lateral web search to find alternatives, to challenge assumptions, to passionately advocate for what it believes is right.

But I don't want to engage all these assholes myself, so I spin them all up as critic subagents with another subagent to listen patiently and be the judge/arbiter.

If I have to choose between sycophancy and assholery, I think assholery gets far better results.

It's a marketplace of ideas where I don't have to suffer through all the unpleasant and overly confident know-it-alls.

He could have done it in 13 seconds instead of 13 minutes: "Anthropic is lying about the effectiveness of agentic loops because there's this one screen flicker bug in Claude Code that took a year to fix."

Yeah, like when United Airlines claims a plane can fly 300 people 6,000 miles they are lying to you.

I can prove they're lying to you because people have been complaining about uncomfortable seats and flight delays for literally decades and those issues still aren't fixed.

But if Google accurately summarizes the defamatory page, then the summary is defamatory?

They could lock them down legally which would prevent commercial use, but they choose not to, and they boast about how many tens of millions of times Gemma models have been downloaded by developers.

So there must be more to the rationale than just local model weights getting hacked out of devices.

I've never seen this many critical-severity CVEs fixed in one month's release.

Most of that is probably Mythos-related.

But there's also a critical zero-day currently being exploited in the wild.

"User interaction is not needed for exploitation."

The trillions that mechanically and automatically flowed into index funds in pensions and 401k accounts must mechanically and automatically flow right back out after retirement, right?

Especially when younger generations are too poor to save for retirement and most companies don't offer pensions to younger workers any more, where will the inflows come from to offset the outflows?

I know GAAP accounting won't recognize any capital gain on these treasury operations, but from an economic standpoint this financial judo creates a lot of value for existing shareholders.

But if it's 40x in October, and inference margin is strong, and revenue is still growing 20% per month, then I'm in.

Normies have never heard of Anthropic, where the economics are incredible and doom vibes are pervasive.

The extremely small float of these offerings will make index weights a rounding error.

Ask your LLM of choice to compare the likely value of shares to be held by index funds with the market cap of each of these companies.

In contrast, there was overwhelming doom and gloom for Google's IPO, in spite of their incredible growth and margin economics. In time, the doomers were proved wrong.

There's so much doom and gloom about Anthropic that directly contradicts their astounding growth and margins. For a long-term investor, Anthropic is looking a lot more like Google not AOL.

I can only hope the doomer narrative dominates until I can get a few shares at a reasonable valuation.

Vibes are almost always wrong. Ignore the vibes and focus on revenue growth rates and inference margins.

In general, I don't think you can reason from the existence of potentially stranded investments back to revenue projections.

And when you frame this as percentage of salaries, that's a sneaky implication that this is only about reducing salaries and headcount, and not about adding capability, or doing things you couldn't do before, or making fewer mistakes, or capturing more revenue, or expanding margins, or competing more effectively.

That said, 5% of knowledge worker comp actually seems very low to me, given the capabilities, and considering the percentage of "knowledge work" that is absolute bullshit.

Two weeks ago I received an email from my HOA saying I'd been billed for a service I never asked for. So I replied to the email saying they'd made a mistake. There are now more than 30 messages in the thread, involving at least 8 "knowledge workers" at the property management company all passing the buck, and the problem is no closer to resolution.

An agent could wipe out all 8 of those bullshit jobs and solve my simple problem in five minutes instead of two weeks. Think of how many hundreds of thousands people are doing this nonsense just in the property management industry alone.

5% is nothing.

My Uber driver, a man about 35 years old, pulled up in a Tesla Model Y with four Lububus superglued to the dash.

Seems like some kind of status thing, not a plaything.

My doctor says that since Cologuard catches a large percentage of those 3-5 per 10,000 without any of the colonoscopy risk, the marginal benefits from colonoscopy really aren't justified since FIT+DNA testing is almost as good, at least for low-risk cohorts.

Very few things in medicine are zero risk. I wish more doctors would help balance the risk of doing A vs. the risk of doing B vs. the risk of doing nothing.

It's all Bayesian conditional probabilities, considering your own individual risk factors, and considering the false positive rate and false negative rate of each test.

And the FIT+DNA test is so cheap and easy, you can do it every year or three instead of every 10 years with the colonoscopy.

She still recommends colonoscopies for high-risk patients, but she thinks the risks outweigh the benefits for low-risk patients, so she recommends Cologuard in those situations.

I appreciate this risk-adjusted and probabilistic approach rather than one-size-fits all recommendations.

I don't know or understand the binary executable.

I don't own the binary executable, I don't understand it, I can't explain it, it's not my work.

I'm a passthrough; I'm invisible.

I have literally no value whatsoever.

Reports of the death of Google Search have been greatly exaggerated.

If you believe all the reports on HN about everyone's non-technical wives and grandmas, you'd have a hard time explaining the all-time highs in global usage and revenue from Google Search.

I agree with you that Claude 4.7 Opus is better than Gemini 3.1 Pro, but it's also a lot more expensive.

For my applications, I can't find better price-performance than Gemini 3.0 Flash. And it hasn't even been upgraded to 3.1 yet.

I suspect Google's target is price-performance and not just raw performance, which is how they can serve LLM responses at Google Search scale and still set an all-time record for quarterly earnings of any public company ever.

Frontier model capabilities leapfrog each other every few months, and Google I/O is in ten days, so I expect the leaderboard will change again soon.