xracy

I don't think you understand what "silencing" is. If they were actually silenced, you wouldn't be able to find anything about it online.

People who are "silenced" are not "googleable with 100s of examples."

Anything this terribly defined, makes a poor candidate for "being treated like cigarettes"

If you've ever been inclined to run a "don't tread on me" sticker, it's time to start trading it out for a "tread on me daddy" sticker.

OOC do you have any sources for what the current administration considers illegal aliens?

Genuinely curious if they've published this information.

> why bring up any other industry when this is the vc playbook

Because my point is how messed up the VC incentive structure for tech is. This is proved by comparing it to every other industry.

> Yes, they do actually. I'm not sure why you think those links are talking about investments when they very clearly are about revenue.

They are using the word "revenue", but can you be certain that the word means "revenue from product sales"? Or does it just mean "revenue from investment".

A couple of the articles specifically mentioned the series A rounds as part of "revenue generation". And my whole point was that investors celebrating how much faster they're investing in AI startups is a classic "begging the question" type fallacy. They are measuring themselves on how much money they are investing in startups, and then saying that is proof that the startups are valuable.

> Answers this question from 9 year ago, so it predates (well probably when you were born)

In case you're wondering why you're getting downvoted and flagged, it's probably to do with the fact that you're throwing around insults like this rather than just answering people's questions.

> What would be different about these people if their faces were visible?

I mean, if you agree there's no difference, then we should prefer transparency? You're going to have to make the case for why they should cover their face, since the default for law enforcement for the last 200+ years has been to show their face.

Medical advice from videos is frequently of the "unhelpful" variety where people recommend home cures that work for some things for absolutely everything.

Also people are really partial to "one quick trick" type solutions without any evidence (or with low barrier to entry) in order to avoid a more difficult procedure that is more proven, but nasty or risky in some way.

For example, if you had cancer would you rather take:

"Ivermectin" which many people say anecdotally cured their cancer, and is generally proven to be harmless to most people (side-effects are minimal)

OR

"Chemotherapy" Which everyone who has taken agrees is nasty, is medically proven to fix Cancer in most cases, but also causes lots of bad side-effects because it's trying to kill your cancer faster than the rest of you.

One of these things actually cures cancer, but who wouldn't be interested in an alternative "miracle cure" that medical journals will tell you does "nothing to solve your problem", but plenty of snake oil salesman on the internet will tell you is a "miracle cure".

[Source] Hank green has a video about why these kinds of medicines are particularly enticing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC9glJa1-c0

It's wild to me that the first Trump Administration didn't teach this lesson. The "Just Trust me Bro" Foreign policy that has existed clearly only works if the person in power is trustworthy, and you have to carefully investigate any policy that is enforced by "trust". One of the most disappointing failures of the Biden Administration was that they didn't realize this.

The greatest failure of every other country was to get lulled into a false sense of security when the US Gov't shifted back to an at-all trustworthy foreign policy.

At this point I am praying that one of the things pushing back on this administration will be American Companies that have gotten rich on the back of "American Globalism", learning just how much it hurts when the US doesn't do its responsibility to remain Allies with it's nominal Allies.

And the EU, Canada, and anyone else who the current US administration is slighting, should absolutely be moving cash hard and fast away from the American Economy, if they want change in US policy. TACO, is about economic policy, and it's hard to imagine this administration continuing it's more unpopular global (and even local policies), if it's discovering it's not actually backed by US Mega-Corps.

> "I'm not sure about "profitable" because these are very young (2 - 3 years old) private companies"

In any other industry, this is the death knell for your company. It's only in tech where the investors drop so much money on early investments, that companies can get away with losing money for "2-3 years".

>The revenue growth -- assuming these investors are not all colluding to fudge these numbers on a grand scale -- is way higher than what most have seen before.

As a matter of strict numbers? The revenue growth could be higher just because of inflation.

You really seem to be doing a Gish Gallup here of links, which don't really prove any of your points. If there are specific metrics you can point to in these links that prove your point, then please call that out, but every one of these that I have clicked on has felt like a nothing burger.

> Menlovc link: is just talking about investment in AI, which proves my point

> FT: Paywall

> Stripe: You've got correlation, but not causation. An alternative thing you're proving could be that more investment in the space makes it easier to bring a product to market and earn revenue (How does this compare to SaaS Startups 5-10 years ago)

> Medium Link: is more of "proving my original point"

> CNBC: It's not clear what the metric is here that's making your case

> a16z: It looks to me like, this is actually proving the point that every one of these is considering "investments" as "revenue" which is wild.

They're also trying to advertise and reinvest in the gold rush in an attempt to convince people there's gold here.

> We already know many useful things to do; there are already 10,000 startups (9789 out of YC alone, 4423 of which are coding-related) doing various ostensibly useful things. And there a ton more use-cases discussed in the comments here and elsewhere. But because of the headline the discussion is missing the much more important point!

There has to be gold in the West! Look at all of the prospectors moving there to get rich on gold! You have not demonstrated that there are 10k uses of AI, you've only demonstrated that there are 10k "businesses" interested in making money off of AI. Just like there were 10k+ crypto-currencies... Just like there were 10k+ "uber but for..." apps. Where are these failed gold-rush attempts now?

Investors are currently rewarding the words "AI", so (to extend the analogy) when the gold moved, the gold rushers moved to where they thought the gold would be.

Also your emphasis doesn't change the reading of the sentence.

>power at any cost.

I mean, but they're not feeding into the US's power. So they're like, buying into a depreciating asset. This actively signals the US is losing power to China given that it's _formerly top ally_ is making trading partnerships with one of it's nominal "enemies". Anyone who can think more than a month out, can see this will result in the US losing power in the long run.

Bruh, what? Why in the world is Obama relevant? Why aren't you also condemning Harry S. Truman, while you're at it?

That's a wild non sequitur in the the middle of your false equivalency. If you can't see the problems right in front of your eyes, and are still complaining about Obama, then you're lost.

I think whether or not you can still actively do this, there should likely be a consequence for the fact that you could ever do this. And pulling from the store for a proportional amount of time seems like a fair way to enforce that.

I don't think this explains why you would pull the article. The fact that it was ever correct is sufficient even if it's not currently point in time correct.

I'm pretty sure this got posted before (maybe for apple, or slightly different headline), and flagged. I can't imagine why this would get flagged, but I think there's a really solid question here. It feels pretty fair to enforce the rules to ensure that this behavior is not allowed on platforms.

Yeah, the more I look at different articles on here, the more I feel like the flagging is pretty targeted at any ideology at all left of center. Or specifically criticism of the current administration.

All that their "anti-politics" flags really do is to make HN more of a "head-in-the-sand" echo-chamber for right-wing ideologies.

It is absolutely murder, and hair-splitting on definitions is famously the first line of defense of people who are 100% guilty and they know it.

Your claim about murder is bad and wrong on the same level as "I did not have sexual relations with 'that woman'." Stop language policing people and actually think about what has happened. This was an extrajudicial killing of a US Citizen by the US Government. That should scare anyone, but instead you're in all of the comments trying to split hairs about "how things would play out in a court of law." No one cares how things would play out in court, because no one trusts the US legal system to carry out justice. So it doesn't matter.

What matters is that this is murder and the US Justice system is about to start doing cartwheels to try and defend a system that is so clearly backwards and corrupt because the current POTUS administration has given up on "law and order" in favor of a grab for absolute power.

Okay, this should be neither here nor there, but from the pictures of the Victim that I've seen, no one would assume she was an immigrant (even though immigrants are frequently Canadian/European).

Like, even under this awful terrible and completely unimaginable ruling (Which should not be the legal standard in the US), there is no way that ICE could be considered to have the power to detain this person.

I think a point on top of this, is that the bar for "what is political" has become arbitrary. To your point, the MAHA movement is incredibly political, but for some reason gets a pass on what is considered "political" even though it's literally put forth by political actors.

The current administration frequently gets away with pretending like they're not "political" and that only the people reacting/responding to them are political even though they are definitionally political.

And the kinds of things that are defined as political seem to only be completely valid criticisms of the government, because they're "controversial".

The number of people who claim to be non-political and are actually just conservative libertarians (I know what site I'm on) feels like it's sky-rocketed, and I would like to see HN and other platforms start calling this out. No one is non-political in the same way that no one is "color blind". Your politics are just unpopular, and you know it.

The wider claim doesn't actually change anything about the discourse. You have not contributed to the discussion, because you've provided no additional information about whether or not the underlying claim is true. We are no closer to truth because of your comment. So you have not "dispelled the mistaken belief that stereotypes are mostly false in general" because we can't make an active assumption about this stereotype without directly proving it.

So... Their original point stands without direct evidence against it. As you have not provided direct evidence, your point is moot.

Calling Bari Weiss "Center-Right" has got to be one of the more dishonest characterizations I've read. Or, you're going to need to claim that the Overton window has gone off the far-right deep-end such that the mere presence of a confounding social factor is enough to pull people from being "extreme" to being "Centrist."

I'd love to know what policy/opinion you think is "Moderate" from Bari Weiss, and which opinion piece of hers demonstrates it when compared to the sheer volume of Deep Conservatism she espouses in all of the rest of her work.

> It's worth noting, I guess, that she's also a lesbian...

This bit is solidly poisoning the well, because it gives you the ability to claim that any legitimate criticism about Bari Weiss Kowtowing to the current administration is because she's a lesbian, and not because she's legitimately censoring free speech like everyone claimed the news was doing before she started actually doing it.

Lobbying against the administration doing raids? It seems to me like every single part of this would hurt their business...

They put up deterrents for day-laborers who might otherwise shop for the projects they're getting hired for at home depot...

You have not disproved that the concepts are opposed in this instance. Which matters much more than whether or not "stereotypes might generally be true." Like, at best stereotypes are a distraction for the actual data we'd like to have discussions about.

There is a far cry between "Stereotypes are generally accurate" and "being able to make a specific measured claim on the basis of a stereotype."

You also don't actively prove this claim, which means that we may know that it's "more likely to be true than not" based on your shared information, but could still absolutely be false.

Which leads me to my question, "Why would you make a comment about the correctness of stereotypes, rather than just finding actual data about the stereotype in question?"

I think it's pretty safe to assume given the conclusion that the US gov't had nothing to do with it. It wouldn't be a headline if they did.

I think this reads to me as a way for you to couch your ignorance as criticism while learning nothing from reading a study like this. Why not do this for your own biases?

What metrics do you focus on while reading an article that result in you confirming your own preconceived ideas?

If you have to come at an article like this in a hostile way, then you're not learning anythign about it, you're just confirming your own biases. I think I would recommend that you focus all of these criticisms inward at your own biases in terms of what you react to and need to explain and see if it's explained in the paper above. Then see if you find yourself convinced by the scientific method that they undertook?

Otherwise you're prepping yourself to continue living in an echo chamber.

"bUT wE StILl DoN't KnoW tHe LOnG TeRM EffECts oF ThE VacCInES."

I swear these folks will be on their death beds 50 years in the future claiming this. There will be no amount of evidence or time that matters to them.

Someone can prove me wrong, and tell me exactly what evidence would convince them that the vaccines are safer than the alternative.

I interpret this as the comment saying "we won't know how this affected things until decades from now." Which can likely be attributed to existing vaccine skepticism and is unlikely to result in them changing their opinion in the next ever.

What I think a lot of people who are anti-vax miss is the risk of the vaccine compared to the risk of COVID. They feel like they're being asked something risky in a vacuum, when in fact, they're being asked for something with (as best as we can tell) limited risk against a backdrop of a dangerous virus that killed millions and caused a global pandemic.

Even if they could demonstrably prove the vaccine created a higher risk of outcomes for people who took it, the risk compared to getting COVID is de minimus, and the likelihood of getting COVID is high. I would be surprised if there was a significant population of people who had avoided it at this point.