abletonlive

And you seem to not realize that a census has a much wider impact than allocation of federal funds.

There is literally NOTHING more important than the allocation of federal funds and congressional apportionment from the census. Those two things directly impact whatever you think you have up your sleeve. So much clueless drivel on HN

This should not come as a surprise when they are forced to live with roommates because they can't afford a house or even an apartment to themselves because every cent is being analyzed for optimal extraction from them.

Just so you know, the new generation is investing earlier than the previous generation.

Gen Z is also outpacing millenials on home ownership https://www.npr.org/2026/05/15/nx-s1-5791499/gen-z-homeowner...

The idea that the latest generation is not benefiting from the current situation is in your head, not reality.

Yet you have no retort

So you seem to have at least a surface level of understanding of incentives.

Check this then:

If the census is responsible for allocating federal funds and congressional apportionment, what are the incentives for making census data private and encouraging people that would otherwise hide their identity?

First off the census is used for determining how many seats are used for congressional apportionment and allocating federal funds.

So unless you're willing to also say that counted illegals cannot used for either of those, then you're just being obtuse.

But if we can agree that they cannot be used for that then sure, lets identify and count them. If we can't identify (make non-private) and count them then why should we trust that those counts are accurate?

There will be a bunch of people that start off with the premise that this data should be private and make following arguments based on this premise.

So I'll just go ahead and ask, give me good reasons why this data should be private?

My guess is that most of you think we should be counting illegals because they should have representation. And I reject that

All of processor above have reference manuals and sometimes example git repositories available on open internet.

okay? then give those reference manuals and git repositories? I haven't heard something know LLMs can't get around and figure out?

Also I believe at least on coding that qwen is now the frontier model

The delusions people live in just to be a hater.

Care to explain how you'd engineer it instead?

which eats 1GB+ of RAM. Meanwhile, my editor only consumes 80MB of RAM

And why are you comparing Claude Code to your editor?

They can't even improve Claude Code

That depends on how you define "improve". They've added a ton of features to it over time. Who said minimizing RAM usage was something they are prioritizing right now?

You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the 500K comp is not worth it and i want to quit to go compete against all the employers that are offering such comp. I am positioning myself to do it this year.

Software engineers have more leverage than ever.

before software developers were among those that were on the winning side, now they’re on the losing side.

are you sure about that? i'm a software engineer and i feel like i'm on the wining side now, even more than before. I'm considering quitting my 500K a year job to go compete against the employers. they seem like dinosaurs to me.

This is not clever. A lot of people do not understand what LLMs are capable of now. It can be learning experience to show a product person how they can leverage LLMs rather than acting like you're the know-it-all by obfuscating the fact that you used an LLM to answer a question

Please disengage if you're not getting anything out of it. I'm sure letting random billionaires live rent-free in your head is deriving much more value for your life. It's not a rocket launch, you don't need to announce that you're disengaging.

What exactly are you contributing here beyond discord?

Well I'm not on here very much and don't comment very much but sure I'll give this a shot:

The rejection of populist ideas that have pushed many into celebrating political violence and death. Want examples?

The rejection of the vicious cycle of envy that has been brewing in these comments and other platforms like this one that is the path that directly leads to above.

The irony of saying that I know nothing about you while saying that you know that billionaires have an endless void to fill, and think that billionaires are simply running on the compulsion of min-maxing capital instead of min-maxing the results of their capital.

Shameful and obvious envy. You're not fooling anybody because your comments betray you

Another comment that's clearly coming from a place of envy, entirely framed about what billionaires deserve rather than having any sort of introspection.

Can you prove that taxis wouldn't have been able to do that, if Uber didn't exist?

Yes, because we only have to go back a few decades to see that the cab industry in NYC were being gatekept by medallions that people were paying 800k+ for just to have the opportunity to drive cab. That was not a system made by billionaires. That was a system made by the government and unions, which is exactly the system that you're fighting for.

Musk is also erecting new gates, to promote himself and his ideas. I have to admit, I'm surprised what he lets stay up there, but I still don't believe it's an actual free platform.

It's more free and less friction than what we had before. The fact that you can't accept it despite the evidence in front of you and your own observations about being surprised is highlighting that you are failing to be objective.

Vibecode it; the billionaires tore down the gates that previously blocked your ability to have any software you want -- as long as the billionaires accede to your use of their AI and running your own software against their platforms, of course.

Sure, another capability that billionaires unironically gave me. I do have other more interesting things to work towards.

ou complain about open platforms filled with people giving you their ideas for free, and you just don't like what they're saying, but you just cited exactly that openness as one of the valuable things that billionaires deserve to have billions for.

Yes, and notice that I didn't say that they should be banned from the platform and their speech oppressed. I turned it around to make it about my own consumption. I have the free will. You're not arguing against me, you're proving my point.

Maybe the people arguing against billionaires don't believe capital efficiency is paramount, so you'd have to persuade them of that first

Maybe we shouldn't assume the people without capital know what is paramount and what isn't when it comes to capital. It's hilarious to think there's some poor chap out there saying these people are being too efficient with capital and accumulating it while also believing that capital efficiency is not paramount. Hello? The problem you're pointing out is directly related to capital efficiency, yet you think the solution is to be capital inefficient. That has clearly not worked out for you or for anybody else in this society. We have countless examples where capital inefficiency has hurt us badly in this society.

Not really. The person saying that billionaires shouldn't exist is just failing to describe why that number is so mystical or interesting to them. If billionaires don't exist are we saying that people worth 500 million won't have power? you can keep doing this but the end result is the same. Power is asymmetrical and the system is self balancing. Those that have more wealth have more power. It's that simple. If you want to make wealth irrelevant then at least come up with a real system where wealth does not exist, because power is an intrinsic property of wealth.

The idea that you can distribute wealth is actually the tell for envy. You want to distribute power because you want power. And you won't be satisfied until that power reaches you, therefore you need to eliminate not just the billionaires, but after it trickles to centimillionaires and decamillionaires after that. If your premise is based on billionaires not existing because they have outsized power you're not going to be satisfied until that power eventually reaches where you are stationed in society.

  It has nothing to do with billionaires and it has everything to do with people with more wealth than you having more power. That's envy. How far do you have to distribute before power is meaningless?

I don't think anyone is simply envious.

I think most are.

The idea that the only way you can incentivize individuals to start companies is to allow them to accumulate so much wealth that they become tiny kings is patently absurd. The world has thousands of companies and founders who happily sustain their businesses without ever reaching this ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.

And how many of those companies and founders have given back to society at the scale that these uber wealthy people have? Entire new economies have been built up.

ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.

This is still just envy. You should try to prove that you're being oppressed by the systems these billionaires have created because we don't have to go very far back to observe when these systems and economies did not exist. I'll remind you that for example, in NYC before Uber, taxi medallions were being sold for over a million dollars and people were going into debt just for the opportunity to drive a cab. If you go far back enough creating a virtual store front to sell your ideas and goods was a gate that was actually very high. Thanks to the systems that are in place now you have the opportunity to spin this up for very little risk and prove out your idea. Structural problems such as what? The idea that wealth is power? That's the same structural problem that has always existed, except that there are more players than ever before. You can launch an entire grass roots political campaign on social media for free. Does that sound like a system that oppresses or is that a system that has given you opportunity to enact change?

Even the barrier to invest in companies and participate directly in the profits and value creation has been erased or lowered. Hundreds of millions of people are directly benefitting from this everyday. It is now a few simple clicks of a button and you're in. Who lowered that barrier? It was the billionaires. And yes, because they did that they will get an asymmetrical reward because their impact and value creation for society is asymmetrical to yours.

You're not doing this, but when you try to have this conversation amongst the general population what is the response? Once you start poking holes at the concept it always reverts to "you're a bootlicker", "why are you defending billionaires, they don't care about you". These responses highlight envy, not reality or the desire to be objective.

Deep down a lot people either don't realize how much free will and agency they now have in this society or they are just living with contempt because everywhere they look they see people that are using that free will to accomplish more than them. It's lack and envy all the way through.

Most of us would not prefer to follow the EU into irrelevancy. If they were the model for how we should be running things how come they are not the ones running the show on innovation?

It's so funny to me how many people have taken envy up as their core personality. Billionaires happened to have created the most opportunities for everybody. Amazon is amazing for the consumer that seeks convenience, but it's also amazing if you want to dropship and make your living off of that. Independent sellers make up 65% of all sales on Amazon. So somewhere the idea that nobody benefits from the creations of billionaires has to be questioned.

Illegal and legal immigrants are being completely supported by Uber right now in NYC. If you lived here you would know that this is their primary source of income for many of them.

The gate that previously blocked your ability to disseminate your ideas to a wide audience and create a living off of it has been completely torn down by the billionaires that create platforms like Tiktok. There are scores of people that have made a living off of this, which was virtually impossible before. The barrier to entry to start from grass roots and build a following and then monetize it has been erased.

It's completely banal at this point to just point at billionaires and say they are the problem just because of envy. I wish there was a plugin for it so I can erase it from my consumption.

The premise that billionaires are less efficient than the government at deploying capital to serve society is incongruent with reality, but sure, they are a convenient scapegoat if your heart is poisoned by envy and lack. That's really all it is and it needs to be called out more often because it's a mind virus that is easy to infect others with. Your life is not served by being clouded by envy and lack, and spreading it is detrimental to all consciousness.

There is objectively more paths to success than ever before. Being preoccupied with what you don't have currently and pointing the finger to blame at some boogeyman billionaire is not going to change anything for your personal life. The buck is on the person with the finger to improve their life and take advantage of the opportunities that are presented to them. Spending your time being mad that people have created something society deems worthwhile and are being rewarded for it is spending your time being envious about something that has nothing to do with your own problems.

:yawn: When in your lifetime were politicians not "run by an oligarchy"? It's so boring when people just hang onto the latest buzzwords and say nothing of substance. You think they need aliens to distract us from this?

I'll help you understand.

- Climate models are demonstrably incorrect, but the current consensus is that it is changing faster than expected

   - if the climate models are demonstrably incorrect, how much weight should we really put into it for understanding our impact on the model?
   
   - if cherry blossoms blooming earlier are an input into the climate and this is a surprise that is not modeled, how much are we missing in our model? do you know how insane it is to try and model secondary/tertiary effects. Climate change is not an independent variable, it is in fact also recursive, therefore any input we are missing (and we are demonstrably missing many) fans out in our model and makes it inaccurate in either direction
    
   - take for example what was being discussed in 2023 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380023001680
   
   - as a comparison to what we think we know now https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-026-02598-w

   - if we can't even get this right, what do you think our chances of understanding the implications of the impact to everything indirectly dependent on phytoplankton?

   - to what end? everything we do affects the climate. we aren't just changing the climate, we *are* the climate. there have been many species that were so effective that they meaningfully changed the environment and climate and eliminated other species or themselves along the way. should we eliminate them too? do we actually understand what we are doing if we do that?

 the presumption that we are changing the climate in a way that makes it unsuitable for humans has not been demonstrated thoroughly. we can see that because population is still increasing, but therein lies the paradox. 

if the model is demonstrably wrong and if it were trivial to correct and understand what was wrong about it then we'd have an accurate model by now, but we don't. after all your premise that ~100 years of observation is enough to say anything, how come we can't get the model right? If you follow this far out enough it also says we have no idea how to reverse the trend. if we did our model would not still be wrong in 2026.

the climate and life on earth is changing, will always change, there will be winners and losers, while we try to change it so that we are the winners, we have more evidence that it's an inherent property of the system and that life will continue on despite change than evidence that pre-industrial climate was the ideal climate that we should strive towards. If you want to argue that we should strive towards an environment where humans have the most success, well the evidence points to the fact that we are currently in that climate. population is increasing. just know that there are many losers in the climate you wish to promote. also know that ANY climate has a lot of losers. that much has been clear.

I think people are just traumatized the content they've consumed from reddit so anything that reminds them of it, such as OP, triggers something in them because HN is starting to feel the same.

Don't even link me to the comment about how this has always been a complaint on HN, it's boring and it isn't the "gotcha" that you think it is.

Did you just compare sd cards to safety regulations? If you’re going to be intentionally obtuse at least put some effort into it

On that note, mandating an SD card slot as a requirement would be a very much welcome next step.

Fuck that. Who are you to subjugate us with your preferences. Limiting what a phone can possibly be by mandating features such as SD cards is so unimaginative. There's always a segment of HN that truly wants to be tyrants and impose their preferences on the entire marketplace and consumers.

Nothing is stopping something like Framework laptops from existing in the marketplace right now besides demand. Y'all can all celebrate it on HN in your bubble but to mandate that the entire market goes in this direction reveals your frustrations more than anything.

You hate that people don't share your preferences and would go so far as to use the legal system to distort the marketplace just to satisfy your own preferences. It doesn't matter if it puts constraints on what a product can be, so long as it fulfills your needs.

So basically, it's a simpler path to impose your preferences on others than it is to actually do any work to build something or find something that matches your preferences.

Completely selfish. Just admit you have disdain for everybody else and you think you know better than the marketplace about what people want, and therefore should have the authority to dictate how everything should be designed and built while doing none of the work.

A healthy reaction to this frustration is to go build the thing you want, show people that it's better, and compete against the status quo - giving everybody more options and choices. You're not there though, and neither are the societies in the EU.

It's sad to see this kind of mindset take over Europe and it's clear it holds back Europe of reaching the heights of innovation and creativity that the world is hoping to see come from a continent that once pushed humanity to higher levels of existence and consciousness.

I live in the United States where entrepreneurship is a common way of living. I have the stats to back it up too.

Maybe you just live in an echo chamber such as reddit where you believe entrepreneurship means making millions of dollars in the tech industry.

LLM companies and redistribute it to the people who did the actual work fueling the models, such as myself.

Okay this is a new level of narcissism and gatekeeping, thanks for the laugh.

It has little to do with my culture vs theirs, and all to do with where the opportunity sits.

So it does have to do with culture. The US has better culture for starting a business. You can't just divorce the opportunity that came from the culture just to make a point.