benzible

He keeps trying: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2026/06/08/sam-bankman-fried...

Hasn't succeeded yet, probably because he doesn't have the money, also too publicly associated with the Democratic Party. I wouldn't be shocked if Trump does it in the end because his empathy seems to be reserved for high-profile scammers.

That is not how any of this works. He was convicted of fraud, and fraud was committed the moment he transferred the funds to Alameda. That he placed some bets that worked out, like his Anthropic investment, doesn't negate the crime any more than if I robbed a bank, placed a winning bet with it and returned the funds with interest.

Of course. Trump isn't aware of "details" like this. But he's very much on board with the "own the libs" project, the project of helping fossil fuel, and he appointed the people who are making it happen.

Although with Trump, it's more specific than "owning the libs": a clear motivating force is undoing anything Obama did or that was around on his watch. Pulling out of the JPOA agreement Obama made with Iran, then launching a war at the price of tanking the global economy which best case will result in a pale imitation of the JPOA (along with a much stronger and richer Iran), is only the latest example.

I wouldn't assume that this is about cost cutting. If the goal were saving money, the cheapest option by far would be to leave the hardware in the water and just stop funding the monitoring. Instead the plan is an expensive operation to send ships out to extract 900+ instruments from under two miles of ocean.

It's clear that this is driven by performative climate denialism and a pro fossil fuel stance. The Trump administration made a billion dollar deal with an energy company to stop construction of offshore wind farms and redirect the investment into fossil fuel projects. Trump constantly talks about the "green new scam" and "climate alarmism". And on top of signaling to his base, Trump met with oil executives at Mar-a-Lago before the 2024 election and pitched them on rolling back climate regulation in exchange for $1B in campaign cash. Destroying the instruments that would document the consequences and might spark alarm and activism is one way to hold up his end of the deal.

In the context of Claude Code, "honest" usually means that the agent took a shortcut, skipped requirements, etc. It's the model giving itself credit for admitting to failing rather than actually doing what was requested.

And I love seeing sentiments attributed to me, in quotes even, that I didn't state or imply, and certainly don't believe. "Critical" by itself is not a synonym for "slanted". However the post I was commenting on was:

Right, but the picture those statements painted collectively was not flattering. And that was certainly intended by the authors. Thus, critical, but not at all "incendiary."

The key there is "certainly intended by the authors". The full sentiment here IS equivalent to "slanted".

You've extrapolated all this just from what I wrote?

says the guy who said "certainly intended by the authors" based on... what they wrote?

On top of that "Put the keyboard down and relax" from the guy who keeps replying?

<chef's kiss>

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The one point I'll concede!

my personal stance is that the critical tone was both intended by the authors

You may think we are on the same side. You don't understand what side I'm on. "Lol".

Your "personal stance" is that you can get inside the heads of the reporters? Obviously not. So you're going by the idea that an article that leads to critical conclusions is inherently slanted. This is an insidious and damaging idea. It has led to the belief by journalists and editors that they need to twist themselves into pretzels to present "both sides", which is easily exploited by people of bad faith to launder outright lies. There's a direct line between this and authoritarianism. I'm quite serious about this. The fact that you agree with the authors in this case is completely orthogonal.

Jay Rosen has written a lot about this, well worth reading: https://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questio...

Are you arguing that because the authors knew the pattern they were documenting was unflattering, the piece is somehow compromised? That they clearly had an agenda? That's called reporting. They called a hundred-plus named sources and the picture those sources independently painted was damning. Altman has a history of telling repeated, easily-checked lies, followed by fresh lies when caught in the first ones.

Are you suggesting that they should have "both sides"-ed by reporting company PR and Sam-friendly sources and giving them equal weight? Sometimes the facts point in one direction.

Like maybe this guy? https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/sam-altman-tech...

Or this guy? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/18/jared-...

If you would expect a typical Trump political appointee, as Colby is, to have even basic historical knowledge, then you may not be paying close attention.

He did come up with the img tag, without which the web would have been gopher.

There's ample reason to dislike him without claiming that he hasn't done anything real.

FYI, claude code “auto” mode may launch as soon as tomorrow: https://awesomeagents.ai/news/claude-code-auto-mode-research...

Nope. Me too.

And the legality of it as well.

We mostly agree. I'm really just making the point that focusing blame on the capitulators lets the people wielding state power off the hook. I suppose you could take the position that the industrialists who capitulated to the Nazis (I mean, those who didn't actively support them to begin with) were more at fault than the Nazis. Personally, I don't believe that.

And to be clear, I'm not saying fiduciary duty requires capitulation. CEOs can absolutely make the case that resistance serves long-term shareholder interests, and the evidence backs them up. Costco is thriving after, and arguably because, they held firm on DEI. Target capitulated and lost $12.5 billion in market value and its CEO resigned. I started shopping at Costco for this reason and haven't been in a Target since Trump took office, after shopping their regularly. What I am saying is that the short-term incentive structure of public companies makes capitulation easier, which is exactly why the coercion works so well and why it's the bigger problem. The system erects hurdles to doing what's right, and often what's even in a company's own long-term interest.

That's not what I said. I said it isn't cowardice you can blame on the network instead of the FCC, which is what the parent comment did by saying the fault lies "more with CBS." CBS deserves blame. The administration wielding the threat deserves more.

Resistance requires an active, costly choice. The entire structure of public companies, fiduciary duty, short-term shareholder pressure, regulatory dependency, incentivizes compliance. That's not an excuse, it's the point. The system is designed so that capitulation is the path of least resistance, which is exactly why the blame has to center on whoever is exploiting that structure rather than on each individual institution for failing to be heroic. The firms and universities that did fight back (Perkins Coie, Harvard, Jenner & Block) won in court every time, while the ones that cut deals (Columbia, Paul Weiss, Brown) gave up money and autonomy for nothing the fighters didn't get for free. But fighting required leaders willing to accept real personal and institutional risk. Expecting that as the default rather than addressing the coercion creating the dilemma is how you end up with a system where everyone folds and nobody's responsible except the victims.

Of course, increasing the cost of capitulation is one place where consumers actually have power. Disney suffered 1.7 million streaming cancellations after suspending Kimmel, and Kimmel was back on the air within five days. That works. But notice what it required: massive organized public pressure aimed at the company and political pressure aimed at the FCC. Not just finger-wagging for being cowards.

The chilling effect is the entire point. An FCC source literally told CNN, "the threat is the point." CBS isn't being randomly skittish. Paramount needs regulatory approval for its WBD acquisition, paid $16 million to settle a Trump lawsuit right before needing FCC approval for the Skydance merger, and canceled Colbert days after he criticized that deal. ABC suspended Kimmel after FCC threats. The FCC opened an investigation into The View just for having Talarico on.

And yes, Larry Ellison is a hardcore Trump supporter, but even if he weren't, this is how every network is behaving. Disney's Bob Iger is a Democrat and ABC still paid Trump and suspended Kimmel. When the government holds regulatory leverage over your business, "obeying in advance" isn't cowardice you can blame on the network, it's the intended mechanism of state pressure.

"Unobjectionable editorial reasons" is Orwellian framing. This is not how journalism works, and the fact that a major news org is now being operated this way is a five alarm fire, not business as usual.

The segment was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. Correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi wrote internally that "pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one."

Alfonsi's team had requested comment from the White House, State Department, and DHS. They refused. Weiss then used that silence to kill the story, saying they needed "the principals on the record and on camera." As Alfonsi put it, "Government silence is a statement, not a veto."

Weiss's other objections included demanding the men be called "illegal immigrants" instead of "Venezuelan migrants" (many had applied for asylum and were not here illegally), and pushing for a Stephen Miller interview, which the administration had already declined. Under Bari Weiss' standard, the administration has a pocket veto over any story simply by not responding. Again, not how any of this has worked, ever!

Great, detailed explanation of the "weird formatting": https://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/2026/02/02/whats-up-with-all-th... (I knew it was "quoted printable" as soon as I saw it but there's a lot more to it).

You are arguing against something I didn't say. I never claimed bias doesn't exist. My point is that having previously criticized someone is not evidence of bias. You are treating "this person has been critical before" as inherently discrediting, when it is just as likely they were right before and are right again now. Conversely, "I used to support him so I am not biased" is given unearned credibility when really it just means you were late to noticing the obvious, or got it wrong previously.

As for dismissing the article: the author has a PhD in space electronics, worked at NASA, and spent a decade at Google including on AI capacity deployment. He walks through power, thermal, radiation, and communications constraints with actual numbers. You do not get to hand-wave that away with "he is anti-Elon" and then defer to "the team spending the most money." That is not rational analysis, that is fandom.

And the idea that SpaceX's experts looked at this and concluded the combination makes strategic sense - seriously? This is the same playbook Musk has run repeatedly: SolarCity into Tesla, X into xAI, now xAI into SpaceX. Every time there is a struggling asset that needs a lifeline, it gets folded into a healthier entity with Musk negotiating on both sides. xAI is burning $1B/month. There is already a fiduciary duty lawsuit over Tesla's $2B investment in xAI. The "space data centers" rationale is a pretext for giving xAI investors an exit through SpaceX's upcoming IPO. This is not a strategic vision, it is financial engineering solving an obvious problem for Elon.

Meanwhile, Grok has been generating sexualized images of children, the California AG has opened a formal investigation, the UK Internet Watch Foundation found CSAM attributed to Grok on the dark web, Musk personally pushed to loosen Grok's safety restrictions after which three safety team members quit, and xAI's response to press inquiries was the auto-reply "Legacy Media Lies." This is the company whose judgment you are trusting over a domain expert's detailed technical analysis.

Having previously criticized someone doesn't make your technical analysis biased. It just means you noticed similar problems previously. Conversely, "I used to support him so I'm not biased" is given unearned credibility when really it just means you were late to noticing the obvious.

This is a thread about Claude Chill. I said that Claude Chill breaks scrollback on ghostty.

The physics argument assumes consciousness is computable. We don't know that. Maybe it requires specific substrates, continuous processes, quantum effects that aren't classically simulable. We genuinely don't know. With LLMs we have certainty it's computation because we built it. With brains we have an open question.

That philosophers still debate it isn’t a counterargument. Philosophers still debate lots of things. Where’s the flaw in the actual reasoning? The computation is substrate-independent. Running it slower on paper doesn’t change what’s being computed. If there’s no experiencer when you do arithmetic by hand, parallelizing it on silicon doesn’t summon one.

You could execute Claude by hand with printed weight matrices, a pencil, and a lot of free time - the exact same computation, just slower. So where would the "wellbeing" be? In the pencil? Speed doesn't summon ghosts. Matrix multiplications don't create qualia just because they run on GPUs instead of paper.

I would love to use this but it breaks Ghostty's native scrollback (two-finger scroll), which I want more than I want to solve the flickering. The PTY proxy intercepts the output stream so Ghostty can't access its internal scrollback buffer anymore.

You may be confusing jameslk with me - I'm actually the one who linked the CASPEH exec summary. Your underemployment math is interesting, but I'd note the study also reports 34% have limitations in daily activities, 22% mobility limitations, 70% haven't worked 20+ hours weekly in 2+ years. When asked why, participants cited disability, age, transportation, and lack of housing itself as barriers. So the causation may be more circular than "fix jobs first" as the same factors driving underemployment are driving housing instability, and being unsheltered makes holding a job harder.

[niche professional vertical] in my response was a stand-in for the specific vertical my startup targets, which is light years from computer security. Computer security is a vertical where the practitioners are often developers or developer-adjacent. You're building tools for people like yourself. That's exactly the "scratch your own itch" dynamic I'm describing.

The vertical I'm in has zero overlap with the developer population. The end users aren't technical, don't participate on HN, and aren't going to "manage an agentic coding project." There's no equivalent of a developer who moonlights on OSS tooling because they're passionate about the problem space, because the problem space requires domain expertise that developers have no reason to acquire.

The OSS point doesn't apply to every vertical. Open source applications come about when developers scratch their own itch. Developer tools, infrastructure, general purpose CRMs, project management get OSS alternatives because developers use them and want to build them.

Nobody is building open source software for [niche professional vertical] in their spare time. It's not mass market. It's not something a developer encounters in their daily work and thinks "I could do this better." The domain knowledge required to even understand the problem space takes months to acquire, and there's no personal payoff for doing so.

The "OSS will appear" prediction works for horizontal tools. For deep vertical SaaS, the threat model is different: it's other funded startups or internal enterprise clones (both of which we've already faced and won against).