throwaway-0001

I’ve seen so many humans bring stupid. Definitively there is nothing in the brain.

You see how doesn’t make sense what you saying?

Isn’t the same with any business just a bit more indirect? So at what threshold is “Fine” and when is not?

1 to 1 cycle: bad 1 to 1 to 1 cycle: good?

…?

Just that the condition is that you give them 150b and if you withdraw and they Dont have you lost 150b and nothing will happen. Good luck recovering your cash from El Salvador or bvi.

Profits can be a simple Ponzi scheme without a proper audit. That’s the simpler answer.

Any evidence that they actually own?

“ In its own attestation report for Q2 2025, Tether stated it holds about US$127 billion in U.S. Treasuries” this is the only source. And tbh anyone can “attest” it owns billions of whatever. Again, no audit because there is nothing there. They only attest through BDO Italia. And attestations are easily gamed. Usually worthless, but useful for usdt hodlers.

I wonder why they use bdo? See below their history.

About bdo:

In the UK, a former senior manager at BDO (in the UK member firm) was banned for 20 years for creating false audit documents and mis-using signatures.

In July 2025 the UK regulator Financial Reporting Council (FRC) flagged the BDO network as having audit quality “significantly short of expectations”. Only about half the audits reviewed were deemed satisfactory

“Since at least 2017 … Tether has been assuring investors that it will get audited, though it has yet to deliver“ can you give me a single reasonable reason this was not done in 8 years?

Usually the correct answer is the simplest - fraud.

Someone just deleted a comment so I’ll put it again here “ Tether is backed by nothing, so it can presumably print without end. If it's suspected they've done this, it could lose its peg. If that happens, it could have consequences.”

There is no reason not to do an audit except when it’s a scam/all money gone. No accounting company wants to do their audit - guess why.

If they bought bonds would be amazing. 99% chances there is not much left. We’ve been saying this for years so not sure when will crash. But definitively it’s a scam

I agree, but why you buy it then? Everyone should be allowed to price how they want it. If they price at 1m + 100k/month would sell much less. Therefore the price they charge is “reasonable” for correct customers

It “feels” same as previous commenter “feels” about AI. Can you even tell the difference in an objective way between a human vs AI regurgitating words? I kinda can tell, but far from very accurate.

Well, from my experience: a few lawyers got the law wrong but my ai did it right and the lawyer “lost” and showed how incompetent the lawyer was.

If you say most people that copy are careful you don’t know what’s an average person. And think there are 50% in the world worse than than them.

Most people lack basic logic skills.

What was the reason before and what’s the reason now?

Seems like it’s “ours” superiority.

For me it’s insulting not to use an AI to reply back. I’d say 90% of people would answer better with an AI assist in most business environments. Maybe even personal.

It’s really funny how many business deals would be better if people would put the requests in an AI to explain what exactly is requested. Most people are not able to answer and if they’d use an AI they could respond in a proper way without wasting everyone’s time. But at least not using an AI shows the competency (or better - incompetence) level.

It’s also sad that I need to tell people to put my message in an AI to don’t ask me useless questions. And AI can fill most of the gaps people don’t get it. You might say my requests are not proper, but then how an AI can figure out what I want to say? I also put my requests in an AI when I can and can create eli5 explanations of the requests “for dummies”

Which one is with evidence and which without?

This is from my experience, I didn’t do any study.

What you said is not a fact either. And so?

I feel every human just regurgitates words too. And most are worse than an AI.

I have countless examples of lawyers, hr and other public gov bodies that breach the law without knowing the consequences. I also have examples of AI giving bad advice, but it’s al better than an average human right now.

An AI could easily save them a ton of money in the fees they are paying for breaching the law.

At least you can counter with an argument. You just seem to agree both are absurd.

So if anyone with below 120 iq gives you their opinion is disrespectful because they are stupid?

—-

It’s interesting that we have to respect human “stupid” opinions but anything from AI is discarded immediately.

I’d advocate for respecting any opinion. And consider good or at least good willed opinion.

Yeah it’s good. Probably should be both days of revenue and days of profit to account for low profit margin companies.

Or % of market cap would also be good.

Could you provide your text? Having same issue for years https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45678095

I’m also self hosting gitea and pertainer and I’m trying this issue every few weeks. I appeal, they remove the warning, after a week is back. This is ongoing for at least 4 years. I have more than 20 appeals all successfully removing the warning. Ridiculous. I heard legal action is the best option now, any other ideas?

In my case codex fixed a bug in one shot. Took 10 min to debug and find it.

Claude struggled long time and still didn’t find.

So just because the poor can do what the rich could do before what it means?

Before only rich can afford to pay a pro to do photoshop. Now any poor person can get.

So why when rich can is fine and when everyone can is a problem?

You couldn’t just photoshop that before ai came out?

What if you get a model that is 99% similar to your “target” - what we do with that?

Robots will do stuff for rich people ecosystem.

The rest you know what’s going to happen

So in the end you had no objective way to differentiate from a llm?

Your fist prompt was just biological.

So if I make an ai with an a prompt and tell him to re prompt itself every day for the rest of his life means is smart now? Or just because I give him the first prompt is invalid? I doubt your first prompt was given by yourself. Was probably in your mums belly your first prompt.

—-

I could give an initial prompt to my ai to survey the server and act accordingly… and he can re prompt every day himself.

——

> I do a lot of something that I think an LLM cannot get do, look at things and try to find what attributes they have and how I can harness those to solve problems. Most of the attributes are unknown by the human race when I start.

Any examples? An ai can look at a conversation and extract insights better than most people. Negotiate better than most people.

—-

I heard nothing that you can do more than a llm. Self prompting yourself to do something I don’t think is a differentiator.

You also self prompt yourself based on Previous feedback. And you do this since you’re a baby. So someone also gave you the source prompt. Maybe dna.

Actually I think the line between creative and regurgitate is so blurred you can’t tell me a single creative thing you did. So if 99% of people are not creative, and just regurgitate then why we keep AI standards so high?

Can you show me one single thing you did in your life that was truly creative and not regurgitated?

Did you ever had a mainstream product and answered customer questions? You should try to see what it truly means an average person.

Examples:

Send email with subject “I need support” (no body).

I answer by email: what you need?

Reply: I need to activate email support

…

Truly agi.

A human is agi when can accomplish all tasks of ChatGPT… how come the reverse doesn’t work?

How to tell if you regurgitated this comment vs being truly creative? If you can show me objectively, I’m sold.

You’re right… but still, what was done until today is significant and useful already