stymaar

The government also wants stable couples (divorce are costly to society) and non-toxic relationship (because these too are costly), which is also what the users desire.

I'm honestly starting to doubt you've ever been on a ship at sea. Being in sight of the shore is going to be of little comfort if your makeshift raft capsizes because of the waves.

Making a boat that can carry multiple people on sea without sinking when the weather goes a little sour (which can happen in less than an hour in the Mediterranean) is a very hard thing to do. And if you know how to do that you'll never have any shortage of metal or other goods in the first place because you end up being the one who trade them for profit.

I think you slightly underestimate how much work and expertise it is to build ships that can transport an army over a long distance on sea.

It's gilded toilet paper so that they can still say it's gold when it comes to protecting the NRA or the right for corporations to buy politicians.

Pretty sad to read incel narrative on HN…

As I said before, the problem is as bad for women as for men, it's just different: women keep getting matched with men that won't form stable relationships, because the app doesn't want to give a relationship to women either (even if they often don't have to pay, and as such are not income stream for the app, they are the product being sold so the app need them to stick as long as possible).

There's no objective “Top 20% of men”, but there is indeed a small group of men that is being pushed down every women's throat on apps because they are the easy going one that will not threaten the app's business by entering a long term relationship.

It's not rosy on the other side, dating apps sucks for women too.

The key problem is that dating apps have no interest in their user finding a long term partner (and leaving the app), they are maximizing engagement, making male pay, make sure people have enough matches to keep their ego afloat and make them addicted to the app, but at no point a stable relationship is a desired outcome for Match group (yeah, because despite having many apps, most of them belong to the same corporation).

The world would be a much happier place if dating apps took success fees instead of a monthly subscription (good luck making that work as a business though).

Sea-ready boats were always scarcer and more expensive than weapons in the first place.

It's still much more sovereign AI than renting cloud from the country who wants to invade them though.

Thank you. People love to blame regulation but no amount of regulatory simplification is going to make a Lithuanian speak Italian.

Combine it with the fact that in the media of every country the US comes far ahead of any other UE countries in terms of coverage (on any topic), you have a recipe that no amount of deregulation can ever fix.

With stateless MCP, the MCP rube goldberg everyone was calling dead in March is effectively dead though.

This is economics though, a discipline where you be like Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart and commit the most impactful fraud of the century and face absolutely no consequence on your career.

When you compare that to the consequence of the hydroxycholoquine paper, which is comparable in public policy impact, where Didiee Raoult lost all its legitimacy and his job, it's easy to see that economics as an academic field doesn't value probity much.

> showing off his gaming skills in a game that is literally a time gated grindfest.

What was even more hilarious was the fact that he had visibly no idea of what the game was even about (he was bragging about item level instead of stat and dismissing the best item of his gear because it was lower iLevel than the rest).

Why would they use it if it's not competitive in some way though?

There's an interesting contradiction in your comment: either the Chinese models are competitive, or you wouldn't be using it!

Why would you use a cloud model that's no better than a local one though? Because if you pick Luna then you don't have to compare it to the big Chinese models, Qwen3.8-27B is what you want to compare it to, and the comparison doesn't make Luna look good.

And maybe they don't, and that's the problem with one-day-old projects: we know for sure that the programmer didn't have time to learn anything from that particular project and we now have to trust them that they know what they are doing. Unfortunately this is wrong in 90+% of the time, so that's kind of a gamble to expect one particular project to tick this box.

I'm exactly in this situation, and at the same time I get so many jumpscares when reviewing the code that I'm not going to stop anytime soon.

It's not going to happen naturally, the labs first need to implement a reinforcement learning pipeline that promotes it.

Armed robberies are done with profit motives by professionalized members of the organized crime. By definition these people have access to the kind of organization and weapons you need to mount such attacks.

Politically motivated armed attacks are a totally different thing.

Also, I think you massively underestimate the sheer size of an IA data center. If you want to destroy one with grenades you're going to need a literal truck load of grenades.

I found the article otherwise interesting, but this particular section struck me as unbelievably dumb:

> An explanation sufficient to convince me otherwise would need good answers to these four questions:

> 1. Why don’t landlords cut rents when their operating costs fall?

I genuinely can't imagine what happened in the mind of the person writing this question.

> we illustrate how conventional property taxes punish those who improve properties and invest in the city by providing housing and business, while those who own vacant lots or surface parking lots are rewarded for holding land out of use.

The reasoning makes no sense applied to land value tax though: people improve properties for their own profit, and the land value (on which the tax is raises) increases slower than the value of their own property so they aren't being deterred by the land value tax. People who don't invest on the other hand don't see increase in their profit while their taxes increase because the land value is being pumped up by those who invest.

Clever idea, too bad they didn't bother writing down their blog post themselves and posted AI slop instead.

If you consider a full fledged insurgency in a civil war setting, you're very far from “one angry dude throwing a molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's DC” that was the original point.

I don't think the US have the social fabric needed for an insurgency to develop on though.

> global warming proponents.

The only global warming proponents are the people insisting that we should keep pouring CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm used to people assuming California = LA + Bay area, but it's the first time I see someone arguing that they don't count…

> But on the other hand, the compile time of Rust is really counterproductive.

Since it's going to be mostly cargo check and incremental builds, I don't think it matters in practice.

De Gaulle, like most of the French political elite at that time, also got a wake up call during the Suez Crisis: if you don't have the bomb you can't intervene to protect your own interests anywhere in the world, because one of the great power could block you without shooting a single bullet and the other won't come to your rescue.

Sure, but in my view any organized actor with military hardware in their hands count as a “very strong force” when compared to the average Joe with a Molotov cocktail. And Iran, as a state actor with ballistic capabilities is obviously one as well.

> b: you are still launching from earth, which is a pretty significant target if you’re worried about ecoterrorism.

This so much. Good luck destroying a DC on earth without a very strong force. On the other hand, destroying a rocket on its launchpad just take one FPV drone.