6,862 karma · joined July 29, 2016
Why? I, as the poster you replied to, do not see it this way at all. Any society, modern or not, can adapt to slow changes. And rapid changes would be at least as damaging several centuries ago, when for example 2-3 consecutive years of bad harvests meant a major upheaval.
Things can look a lot smoother after a few centuries. My 2c.
That's, uhm, normal and why groups form by interests, from cooking to hiking to reading to hackerspaces to rocketry. I see it as neither bad nor sad. My 2c.
"User asks for the wrong thing, LLMs corrupts production data" -- fair, do not do this, ME, SE or anyone else.
But I am not talking about safety or enterprise critical systems. In those systems a random SE also does not have the skills to comply with implied guardrails and should not have the authority to do damage. Those systems have explicit, enforced guardrails that apply to every request.
I am talking about prototyping and personal projects. We let softwies use a kitchen knife to cut beans and bread without a licensed ME supervision despite the fact that knives can (and do) cause a lot of damage. In the same vein we should let everyone use LLMs as just another tool and set their own safety vs functionality constraints.
If people feel that LLMs are so dangerous that they require specific licensing like firearms, explosives, etc. they should advocate for such licensing. But it will be a hard sell. My 2c.
I do not agree to that. Being able to make computers do your bidding is a very powerful skill, but is not universal. Software is a small part of the real world. If LLMs help non-software types tinker and try their own ideas more effectively, vive les LLM! If some folks who write CRUD apps or ad distribution algorithms feel threatened by LLMs, ... well, that is a trade worth taking. My 2c.
This! Groups with strong software skills (like HN) miss how LLMs unblock people who previously were unable to build what they wanted because they lacked the software skills.
I know an ME at work who have begged software folks for a year to build specific software he wants and was getting a mix of "we are too busy", "it does not work this way" and quick prototypes that were not quite what he wanted. Then he spent his free cycles with Claude building what he wanted. It took some time and some iterations and it may be ugly under the hood, but he wowed many folks with different types of demos of our system. The view he presented resonated with many users. And he feels empowered how that he can build tools he wants to try himself and do some projects that before he had to beg for, himself.
The software is being disrupted and disruptions are painful. But maintaining the status quo of several big tech names controlling everything we do on most electronic devices and optimizing for the doomscrolling time is not a worthy goal either. My 2c.
In many countries, both democratic and not, police can lie (e.g. to try to get a suspect make a mistake and expose some information).
Going to court is the standard, and usually the only, path for resolving disagreements that parties cannot easily resolve between themselves. Retaliating by putting the passenger on a no fly list deserves public shaming and pushback.
For example, a major grocery store can put people on a "do not come here again" list. But this is an easy way for a big business to hurt a person and should not be used for minor issues. I might see this "the business bans whoever it wants for any reason" as a legitimate defense, but not in a regulated business with high barrier to entry.
Everything else IMO is just fine. The airline landed the plane safely, made some promises (including a single room), could not keep all of those promises, the passenger pushed for more compensation than what airline offered, etc. That happens thousands of times every day all over the world. But this does not remove the big black mark of exploring putting a passenger on a no-fly list. My 2c.
Because kids, because pornography, because terrorism, whatever. This is too powerful an option for control freaks to resist.
Can you share a link or two to this? Hearing a data center from miles away sounds suspicious.
As much as I doubt that spreading of the data centers is a good thing, noise is not the weapon to wield. Unless we are talking the center of a quaint town. And possibly not even then.
My experience was not with pure software houses; we had some labs, measurement and RF equipment, but even without the hardware component the offices, insurance, admin expenses, HR, janitors, conference travel and so on would easily bump the total employee cost to double the salary. My 2c.
But pure tech is a small part of all white collar jobs (the linked article references "white collar jobs", not "professionals" which the title substituded for it). And many non-tech white collar jobs are not nearly as meritocratic as those in the pure tech (I also agree that in Asia or Western Europe those jobs might be even less meritocratic, but this does not change the point above). My 2c.
I personally find the US setup where often the longest serving and oldest workers would be earning the most, strange. Even when those oldest folks are clearly past their prime and themselves admit so.
There are always exceptions. I worked with a fantastic colleague who was a highly knowledgeable technical expert and a capable PM, always punching above his weight at work. One day in a chance conversation with him I was shocked to hear that he wants to retire soon because, now that he is on the wrong side of 90, he is not that interested anymore. My jaw dropped -- I never paid attention to his age. But I suspect many folks in the last quarter of their productive life will be happy to slow down. My 2c.
No, but a good first step would be to widely acknowledge that the problem is hard. And thus is not solvable by a quick fix of a type "let's ban <something>". Otherwise we will keep trying quick fixes and local optimizations that will be just as quickly subverted by the deep pocketed incumbents.
This system needs a reset. It could (after a likely painful disruption) refocus on teaching, keeping current (exorbitant) prices but providing a better education. Or it could focus on costs (cutting off unnecessary expenses). Or do something else, but the current setup is not sustainable.
Sorry to nitpick, but why is the next month's ballot (and in general the issues that have not been voted on yet) affecting current service?
Maybe because otherwise for a significant portion of the world population their own fiat is the only game in town. And it sucks so much that the regular people are willing to break laws and risk fines, confiscations and occasionally prison just for keeping their savings in anything else, like a neighbor country fiat. Their govvies use their fiat as a transfer mechanism (which makes saving impossible) and thus must discourage any other savings vehicle; otherwise no fool will use their fiat.
I saw fiat rug pull twice in my first 25 years: once as an instant nationalization (a friendly radio announcement one night that your money is ... well ... not a money anymore) and, later, a hyperinflation that over 2 years wiped out savings. And being found with a less sucky fiat at home meant jail.
I was just a kid, did not have any savings and thus did not care that much. But an older generation lost everything. So yes, a lot of people will gladly use anonymous, permissionless money, drawdowns and other warts included.
Most people who use Lightning do not operate their own nodes; same as with other payment methods -- credit card users do not operate their own payment networks, people writing checks do not operate their own banks, etc.
It feels like we are talking across each other and I just do not get it.
> What's the point of it all in this case?
Lightning is an L2 protocol, highly scalable and used for low cost payment in Bitcoin. Level 1 networks are almost never used for user transactions: your credit card payments do not go over fedwire, etc. Bitcoin protocol is not scalable to serve worldwide money transfer needs; Lightning is. And with the cost of a penny per transaction or so.
> Why not just use regular currency?
There are a lot of frictions in the current banking systems, because money laundering, because drugs, because whatever. Getting $5-$10k in regular currency while on an overseas trip can be a major quest. With Lightning I can transfer that much (or more) in a few mouse clicks.
As a side note, I think the federales are already way too nosy regarding my use of my own money, so I want to give alternative options as much business as I can. My 2c.
I disagree. Tying a pseudonym to an IRL persona for purposes of law enforcement is a part of an official investigation.
Doxxing is specifically non-government unmasking and dissemination of that tie for extrajudicial purposes, almost always for harassment. There is a world of difference between them and we should not fudge them together with terminology. My 2c.
Skipping screen time between waking up and getting up will might solve this problem for a significant fraction of the first world population. My 2c.
R1. But central bank gold holdings are rising organically, and partially at the expense of US treasuries. CB gold holdings have been dropping for 35 years, until about 2015. The price rise of gold from 2005 to 2015 did not reverse this trend. From 2015 to 2019 gold price did not rise, but reported holdings did. The recent doubling of the gold price muddies things a little, but the trend is clear.
R3. Reported gold purchases have trended down in 2025 and 2026, probably due to price doubling. But they are still positive. Emerging markets did not sell into this strength to build up more liquid holdings (UST) as more effective tools to support their economies against future malaise. Even "trending down" part is muddy, too, because some countries CB do not report it. China, an elephant in the room, started better obfuscating its holdings, including gold, since COVID.
R4. Yes. Gold owned by CB strognly trended down since 1980. That trend stopped in 2005 and reversed somewhere between 2005 and 2015. And likely accelerated in the last few years.
As a side note, I personally see USTs losing dominance as a reserve asset as a good thing. USG needs some checks on its spending, and world being willing to buy long dated treasuries at below inflation rates incentivizes the "we do not need to solve real problems, we can just print more money" mindset. My 2c.