tdb7893

My experience is that people will be able to justify anything that is "normal". I went vegan after learning too much of how the literal sausage is made and the amount of people who have unprompted (people are weird about it so I try to avoid talking about being vegan except for mentioning it quickly while declining food) said something along the lines of "factory farming is awful but I just love bacon" and laugh is legitimately terrifying. It seems like if it's normal enough people will say something is bad and will happily do it anyway.

It's made me rethink my life and how I do the same thing and was the impetus for me leaving tech.

How accurate are these pictures? I feel like I see ideas like this on HN pretty often and the art always gets things wrong. Like all the same clean armor during the first crusade seems doubtful and two swords on horseback just seems wacky. Two swords like that is dumb normally but also how do you control the horse lmao

Haha, I wouldn't actually say anything (sarcasm never transfers on the internet). More of it's interesting that many baby boomers I know in real life think the sky is falling based on metrics that are better than they were when they were kids, and they didn't even have COVID as an excuse.

I cannot wait for one of my uncles to post this about how kids these days can't do anything so I can point out that the scores were even lower in his age bracket.

I think you're missing my point, which is pretty narrow here. "Democratization" is fairly grand term implying that the general public now have access to something freeing they didn't before (it generally invokes some idea of liberation, as the term often is used to note a transition from an authoritarian to a democratic government). I don't think there has ever been a particularly high barrier to making good diagrams, in my experience it's an easy to learn skill both in time and money, so it feels like it's cheapening the term "democratization". Maybe I'm being a bit sensitive though because of how the world is right now with people sometimes literally fighting for democracy. Normally I am pretty lax with semantics but I've had some people really rub me the wrong way when overhyping AI.

It's always felt like way overhyping to call something "democratization" when it's something I could do as a middle schooler in 2005. It takes some skill to do very well but it's not like basic diagram creation isn't something people already could do for basically free (I create figures for my job all the time now and chatGPT is more expensive than tools I use for design).

Commissioning high quality diagrams from a designer is expensive and I guess it's much cheaper now to essentially commission something but idk, "democratization" still feels weird for just undercutting humans on price.

Boeing's commercial (not government contracting) division is famously dysfunctional and has been for a long time.

I don't think aerospace is a good example of efficiency in the private sector. Lockheed Martin did the F-35 and it's main competition in the US is Boeing...

I'm not an expert but from my friends in the industry (including multiple at Lockheed and Boeing), it's definitely not a story about how good and efficient the private sector is. Boeing especially sounds like it's been a real mess with a lot of project management issues.

As far as the Constitution goes, non-citizens have the same rights as citizens (at least for all the rights given to "persons") and there's no carveout actually in the Constitution for national security or immigration. Practically you have a point given case law but even in cases of immigration and national security these Constitutional rights still apply (regardless of what any branch of either Congress or the president try to do).

You can read the bill of rights here (no mention of citizens or national security): https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...

So firstly: no significant group in the US is advocating for "open borders", that term is just a strawman as used in modern politics.

Secondly: "open borders is a libertarian policy, not a left-wing one" doesn't really make sense. Saying a particular policy is inherently part of only a single ideology just isn't how ideologies work. Also, if you're looking for anti-statists who view people from all countries as equal and are for people being able to choose which government to be under then the ideology that best fits that is "anarchism". If you're using a definition where "anarchism" and "libertarianism" are essentially the same then you're using a definition where "libertarian" isn't particularly right wing (which makes contrasting it to "left wing" not make sense).

I always feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people say no one complained under Obama since I distinctly remember people complaining at the time (maybe it just didn't make it to less left-wing circles?). It's also pretty trivial to find contemporaneous ACLU articles on it with specific complaints.

https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/ones-obama-left-behin...

https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/ones-obama-left-behin...

One thing to note when talking about "foreigners" is that many rights in the constitution specify "persons". So citizens and non-citizens theoretically have equal rights from that standpoint. So I agree in general but it's worth noting that he was supposed to have constitutional rights to speech and against unreasonable searches.

I think much more likely is that it will just be made legal federally sometime in the next decade. Marijuana legalization has majorities across ideologies (https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal...) and even though the inability to create federal law on something so popular seems like a good case study on how the US system doesn't always do a good job representing it's actual people, it seems to be at a critical mass where it can't be ignored for much longer. Even my parents' friends who are conservative have started doing weed.

Sure but that response about the people is entirely ignoring the vastly larger issue of does she (or, more importantly, people actually in Iran) want every single power plant bombed because that is what the threat was (also all bridges and some railroads). This is talking about the country being without power and stable food or water infrastructure for the foreseeable future and a lot of normal people dying (not particularly regime supporters)

My general impression is many people want the regime destroyed, which seems clear from talking to people but also just all the protests. I haven't asked but I'm skeptical they are for things like attacking of every bridge, railroad, and power plant (which are important civilian infrastructure). The threat was specifically that their "whole civilization will die tonight"

My point is that inequality in isolation doesn't happen. It's a hypothetical that doesn't exist. It's like talking about sugar and ignoring calories

Inequality is inherently bad for dynamic market economies. Often the argument is that increasing inequality is fine if the economy is growing and the lower classes aren't losing income but inequality also slows growth as more of the investment goes to consumption for fewer and fewer people. So economically I agree that inequality is not zero sum but it seems like inequality lowers the total productivity of the economy in the long term (so it's net-negative sum).

This is in addition there are effects on the civics and reduction in welfare of people. Like many things in economics, inequality is a hard thing to do good experiments on but the data suggest that inequality itself has a host of effects that you're ignoring.

This article is a decent primer on the effect of inequality and what we know and don't know (and also some of the difficulties studying it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequality

Edit: there's a lot of literature on this. If you use Google scholar you can find tons of articles talking about the various effects of inequality (though as always with economics, the papers struggle to get good data). Modern economics definitely doesn't view it as an isolated and benign thing.

The headline is a remarkably rosy spin on it when the subheading is "Research shows that ranks of higher earners have grown markedly over last 50 years, while lower rungs of middle class have shrunk". The article is behind a paywall but it makes it sound like inequality is increasing.

The top comments complaining about other comments complaining about stuff really shows how negative internet discourse is hard to avoid. I don't think these comments are bad (meta-discussion is a good thing in general) but they also seems to embody that same negativity.

This comment also isn't positive and the cycle continues. I agree that people are often too negative and this is a good example of how that negativity is contagious.

A decade ago wasn't Musk talking about Hyperloop? He sounded like an idiot to many people then, too. His companies were good at the time but once he talked about anything else I feel like it was pretty clear who he was.

I don't think this is new though, Henry Ford was famously into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and even owned a newspaper to spread hateful nonsense (history might not repeat itself but it apparently does rhyme). I'm sure if there was more recordings of robber barons of the past you would see the same dumb nonsense you see now.

There's a recent AP article talking about this some (I don't know enough to know the quality of the article): https://apnews.com/article/china-coal-solar-climate-carbon-e...

I've noticed this for MAGA people I've met in real life but for the people actually making decisions, this administration (and their friends/political donors) has been making too much money for basic greed to not also be a huge factor.

I am not against the general use of AI code. Quite simply, my view is that all relevant context for a review should be disclosed in the PR.

AI and humans are not the same as authors of PRs. As an obvious example: one of the important functions of the PR process is to teach the writer about how to code in this project but LLMs fundamentally don't learn the same way as humans so there's a meaningful difference in context between humans and AIs.

If a human takes the care to really understand and assume authorship of the PR then it's not really an issue (and if they do, they could easily modify the Claude messages to remove "generated by Claude" notes manually) but instead it seems that Claude is just hiding relevant context from the reviewer. PRs without relevant context are always frustrating.

If those tools are writing the code then in general I do expect that to be included in the PR! Through my whole career I've seen PRs where people noted that code that was generated (people have been generating code since long before LLMs). It's useful context unless you've gone over the generated code and understand it and it is the same quality as if you wrote it yourself (which in my experience is the case where it's obvious boilerplate or the generated section is small).

Needing to flag nontrivial code as generated was standard practice for my whole career.

Maybe it was added after your comment but that section has a warning box calling the score a "deliberately absurd formula" and saying "this is comedy" in literal bold letters at the top. No one thinks it's serious and it's even clearly labeled as a joke just in case.

The people I know not in good and long term relationships now are the ones that stayed in bad ones too long in their 20s and 30s. Staying in bad relationships seems to be what has people in the "dating phase" later in life. Trying to make bad relationships work had people I know miserable for a decade and then dating again in their 40s when the relationship inevitably failed.

Especially when you consider that the set of people asking Reddit of all places for dating advice are probably young and in bad situations (it seems like people in abusive relationships often ask the internet for advice because part of abuse is separating them from their loved ones in real life), then "stick with it" seems like the riskier statrgy generally.

I don't think this is necessarily that the advice is getting worse. My friends are pretty mature and stable people and I've found that they've had way more issues staying in relationships longer than they should've compared to breaking up earlier. Especially for relationships earlier in people's lives (where many people I know has a story about being in a relationship for way longer than they should've and seems often to be the ages of people asking for advice) erring towards breaking up seems prudent.

Not that these relationships subreddits are good (often it's obviously children trying to give advice they don't have the experience for) but I don't think that telling people to break up more is less accurate advice.

I put a nice box with a pet safe heating pad and blanket and the cat never sat on my keyboard again. When she wanted my attention she then just stood in front of my face and then would sit back on the blanket eventually

Like most things in biologicy, categorization is a nightmare unless you have a very specific use case in mind. In this case I'm talking about women phenotypically and socially (including self-identity) and especially athletes assigned female at birth. These women are clearly not just "males".

From a biological perspective, the women being banned here are not just men and as far as I'm aware cannot realistically compete in the men's division any more than any other woman. Practically these changes bar women athletes with certain medical differences from competing in the Olympics.

I'm not an expert so idk whether that's fair or not but that's what this decision is doing.