sebastianz

Using your mind to "untangle" is the whole point and pleasure of reading. Using llms to expand your understanding of it makes sense, but "Outsourcing" the reading not so much.

> problem that had already been solved thousands of years ago

If by this you refer to "Aristotle" in the parent post - it's not that Aristotle. This is "Aristotle AI" - the name of their product.

It's the third link on that page, in the first sentence.

People want to sync their data, work on and see the same thing on their phone, their laptop and their desktop. This certainly did not "just work" when "we used to have offline everything".

> It just reads like thinly veiled racism.

Thinly veiled? What veil - it's completely naked, one can clearly see all the constituent parts, including the repugnant bits.

Your browser can translate the page automatically.

> But once AIs become your lifetime companion that know everything there is to know about you and the lock-in is maximized

Why? It's just a bunch of text. They are forced by law to allow you to export your data - so you just take your life's "novel" and copy paste it into their competition's robot.

> data modeling, to algos, backend integrations, frontend architecture, UI widgets, etc. All in TypeScript, which is perfectly suited to LLMs because we can fit the types and repo map into context without loading all code.

Which frameworks & libraries have you found work well in this (agentic) context? I feel much of the js lib. landscape does not do enough to enforce an easily-understood project structure that would "constrain" the architecture and force modularity. (I might have this bias from my many years of work with Rails that is highly opinionated in this regard).

Highwaymen still have those fast horses, up on the lawless mountain passes... ;)

Why would it be difficult to say what it would look like? Humans and markets exist for many thousands of years. Advertising in its current form for a couple of hundred. Just look back in time, there were markets then too :)

> A market without advertising isn't a level playing field, but a near-unbreakable oligopoly.

Why would it be an oligopoly any more than it is now? You go to a shop (in your city, or online), trust their curation, and buy something. If it's garbage, next time you will pick another shop or curator, or discuss with your friends / colleagues. Repeat until you find a place with satisfactory curation.

Why would this dynamic be bad? Why would I as a customer be better served by banners shoved in my face by the producers with the highest pockets?

> If the people aren't there, wages will rise until they show up. [...] There is not, and never will be, a shortage of cleaners, for example, because anyone can do it, so as long as there are unemployed people and the wages are good enough, someone will do the work.

While this might be in a theoretical and pedantic way true, sometimes you do not have the economic context to provide those larger wages, so there will technically be no "shortage" - but just because the jobs themselves will disappear.

If you look at poor countries or regions, there is garbage, dirt and dilapidation everywhere. Clearly there is - in a practical way - a need for cleaners, but by your definition there is no "shortage" - because they cannot afford to pay anything for those jobs.

> doesn't usually come around twice.

There is a _2_ in WW2 :)

Sadly looking at history these "opportunities" come around quite regularly.

Many countries in the former soviet block would very much contradict this take.

Entire economies were indeed planned and designed, and their shape was controlled and changed at will. Individuals and groups had control, and did do major changes, including but not limited to forced resettlement and labor camps.

You can of course argue that this ended almost universally in failures, but people did try, and the amount of control over economies is very much a spectrum.

> I don't feel like the average person born back then had a better life than me.

This is true for (almost) anywhere in the world. Everybody has a better life _on average_ than 100 years ago.

> It even was an empire, with an emperor and all!

But the fact that your country was the capital of an empire a century ago is a large reason for why it is richer now, and generational wealth was indeed passed on.

This perhaps is visible if you look at countries that used to be subservient to yours, in empire times. Are they not - relatively - still poorer than the former empire capital?

> I’m interested in creative breakthroughs, not maximizing any predictable or conceivable variable.

Most jobs and tasks in life don't need any "creative breakthroughs". The article is discussing scheduling, task prioritization and management. Fix this bug, implement this feature, schedule this doctor's appointment, do the dishes, buy toilet paper. No breakthroughs needed for those, creative or otherwise :)

> What’s the difference between what you describe and what’s needed for a fresh hire off the street, especially one just starting their career?

The fresh hire has the potential that after training and working for a while to become a much more valuable and reliable senior.

> which is a win-win for everyone involved

Well... not for everyone involved. It's definitely a "lose" for the countries they are leaving from, that educated them.

I understand your point, but in reality we all know the world is full of mean and petty people. I am thankful for the moderation on the platforms I read for (at least some of the time) sparing me the frustration and sadness I would get from otherwise constantly reading their opinions.

I still do not understand how it can be illegal for them to do this, if they do have the prerogative to cancel an election result. (In the sense that you can disagree with a judge's decision, he might even make an objectively wrong decision, but it does not make him taking that decision illegal, just perhaps wrong.)

I am curious to read more about this in the coming days. I do remember previous scandals related to the CCR and their (often said too close) relationship to the parties in power. But I guess in this case I just don't see why their decision would be illegal, and when compared to the alternatives I don't see why it would be wrong.

To also clarify, despite thinking this might be the correct decision, I actually think politically there is a higher probability now of yielding a worse president, since Ciolacu & Simion will probably end up in the secondary, the latter having chances, instead of Lasconi. Not that I think she's the greatest candidate either, but again... compared to the alternatives...

> Because it's legal. And what they did now is not legal.

I am not an expert on this, so I'm not saying you are wrong, but why would they not have the prerogative to do this? Do you have any sources for that?

I know at least that there is precedent in the EU - Austria cancelled a round of elections in 2016, also for some electoral law incongruities / technicalities (that at least superficially by my knowledge were less serious than this scandal), done also by their constitutional court.

But if you believe it is highly likely this would happen (which presumably the CCR do believe, along with various state-defense relevant institutions), how is this whole process you described better than just cancelling them now?

OK, but what could they have done instead?

There is a very surprising, out-of-nowhere win by an independent, that declared he spent 0eur on his campaign, as a result of what looks to be a large scale (presumably expensive to run) campaign on TikTok, that nobody knows who financed, which will await trial, commissions and investigations to figure out.

What could the court have said when they were prompted? Ignore this? I'm not really a 'Constitutional Court' apologist :). I am genuinely curious... what would have been the alternative here?

Well hopefully they cannot do that in the future, since TikTok is also being investigated in the scandal. They are the ones who pocketed the money for the ads after all, and are required to comply with the electoral laws of the country, which they did not.

(later edit: Actually probably they did not pocket the ad money, since I think the accusation is most of it was not legitimate ads, but puppet-account posts from some service. Of course, TikTok could still be be held responsible to better police these, but perhaps is not the direct destination of the money.)

The allegations and current trial (and what looks like an upcoming European Commission investigation) seem to show that someone purchased illegal electoral ads (i.e. they were not declared as such, and financed though unclear means, by unclear parties).

TikTok was required to comply with electoral law and check/enforce all this stuff but did not respond until after the elections, and apparently did not enforce these electoral laws, while pocketing all the illegal ad money.

> a bunch of people are going to be motivated to hack the election to get it "annulled" in some way.

There will be trials for this, and both the people who bought the ads (if they can be found), but more importantly the media publishers who pocketed the millions will have to answer questions to prove this was legal.

You can't unilaterally "pump some millions" to buy some electoral ads. Someone pocketed some millions and will need to show receipts.

> You can't just tell every country in the world: please don't interfere with our opinions!!! We want our people to only be influenced by ourselves!!!

You can indeed, and countries do indeed have laws governing this, as does Romania[1]. The sources of spending for electoral ads have to be very transparent, and adhere to various regulations, such as that foreign governments, institutions and companies cannot finance local elections.

[1]: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/73672

I have no idea, but if you illegally want to get someone elected as president in a foreign country, I suggest talking to a very smart lawyer, not to a rando on hacker news :)

If a foreign state actor gets someone illegally elected in a separate country with dirty money, this is not an "accounting issue".

> If i pay some money to google to run some ads for the 2 main parties, and don't report it, do they also get disqualified?

If you pay money to run electoral ads, for someone's campaign, this money has to be declared, and the ads should be marked as such.

In this case, neither has happened.

TikTok also did not ban these bot networks as they should have according to the electoral laws, so there will be a separate investigation that I think the EU commission has started to find out why they are not complying with electoral laws in the countries they operate in.