kolbe

I don't know who you think you're talking to about being upset, but this was exactly the halfwitted "u maaaad" response I would expect from a bot.

You could be an Iranian sponsored bot. I'm not saying you are. You could be so don't get mad at me for publishing that statement. Because if I say "can," then I don't need to be accountable for any misinformation.

That's at the state level. But that doesn't account for the explosion in admin salaries and positions. The actual money a district spends on each student has been going down every year. Those funds are going more towards admin activities.

Ok? Seems like that's more of a problem than the funding. Or whatever is causing that is more of a problem, but it does a disservice to the general argument of "kids aren't receiving the same level of care" argument to blame a drop in funding--especially when it was so easily falsified.

So I agree with the judge, who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard.

Unfortunately for you and all of the other people here endlessly talking about her use of "Orwellian" as references to thoughtcrimes, reality control, and doublethink, she was likely instead using the word in reference to the fact that the DoW wanted to use the tech for surveillance.

So, no, you don't agree with the judge, as convenient as that appeal to authority may have seemed. She made a slightly hyperbolic statement about the surveillance state. You all went into... I don't even know what.

This doesn't require the slightest bit of doublethink. Their technology is fantastic and would be an important military tool if Anthropic allowed it to be used as such. Their choice to disallow it makes them a supply chain risk, but the existence of the technology makes them important. This isn't hard.

I have a copy here. Which page?

I remember when American companies could do domestic business, or not, with whomever they wished without having to worry about being punished by the government for their choices.

No you don't, because that time as never existed.

If a government orders a pacifist to pick up a gun, is that allowed? If a government orders a pacifist to manufacture a gun, is that allowed? (There's a spectrum of 'complicity'.)

Yes. It's called the draft. It's called wartime manufacturing decrees. These all existed at the time of Orwell, and he never alluded to them being thoughtcrimes. Compelling people to act against their beliefs is common and distinct from throughtcrime. And if you cannot see that, then I don't even know how to talk to you. Government has always controlled your outer life. Orwell introduced thoughtcrime as the next step in totalitarianism, as the erasure of inner life.

edit: I asked Opus to analyze this thread, and I agree with it.

That said, Orwell would probably also note that the people arguing against you aren't entirely wrong to be alarmed — they're just reaching for the wrong literary reference and overstating the analogy. Government retaliation against companies for political speech is concerning on its own terms without needing to be dressed up as dystopian fiction. The 1984 framing actually weakens the critique by making it easy to dismiss as hyperbolic.

He'd probably tell everyone in the thread to say what they mean in plain language and stop hiding behind his book.

They got labeled a "supply chain risk" in order to prevent the government from contracting with them. They didn't disappear or arrest or even charge Dario. He's a billionaire with more freedom and opportunity than Orwell could have even imagined.

Didn't label them an "enemy." Didn't accuse them of crime. And the decree was due to Anthropic's actions--not their thoughts.

I remember neither that happening in 1984, nor is that a description of what is happening to Anthropic. Or is this is an Animal Farm reference instead?

I remember Winston having a private conversation about political beliefs, and then being literally tortured into submission. And I remember Anthropic refusing a government order (albeit a stupid government order), and then being labeled a "supply chain risk." You can twist reality however you'd like though.

But it's the topic he brought this up in.

Except he was skeptical about Meta's effective tax rate being 3%. Why are you making up scenarios that aren't real to justify hurting him?

Sure thing boss. What other advice stemming from your vast experience, wealth, and psychological heath do you have for me? I'd love to improve my image to you... the "ick" police.

I think the words are going over your head sorry.

(You)

Nobody is being rude to you

(Also you)

I guess things are only rude if they're said to you, and not by you? Seems logically consistent with all your other takes.

I understand everything you have said. The D-K of you WSB transplants is wildly frustrating.

If you'll notice, all I am doing is asking the brigade of snarky know-nothings to stop talking. I'm not pretentiously claiming to know, unlike all of you. You clearly aren't in any position to understand the internal working of Google, and it's unfortunate that HN used to be a place where a question like the original one would have been answered by a person who does, but is now flooded with people like you. I will gladly take the downvotes if they're from a bunch of garage band stock pickers.

I didn't ask for potential reasons. You're talking about the "reasons" for a "gradual transition," and I am telling you that this investment isn't transitioning anything. Everyone is keeping their equal share of the company. So, I don't understand why you are giving reasons for something that isn't currently happening.

What gradual transition? Alphabet's ownership percentage is unchanged.

Not when there's three like-minded accounts upvoting each other.

What would you add to the company as an investor?

Alphabet is providing $13bn of the $16bn raise. What are you talking about? Do you really think that $3bn matters in the slightest?

He's talking specifically about Waymo's situation. Alplabet, a company who has $75bn of FCF, owns 80% of Waymo. A $16bn capital injection is meaningless to Alphabet, so he's wondering why they're going through the trouble.

He raises a good point, and the answer is likely that they can run into legal issues by either under or overvaluing the company in a capital raise where they're the controlling shareholder, then the IRS or existing investors have grounds for a lawsuit (or audit). They likely just want to bring the capital raise out in the open to get a fair market value, and then they will be 90% of the capital in the raise.

I've never been in a Waymo, but I am impressed with them from what I've seen reported.

Hacker News likes to keep conversations focused on the topic at hand. I doubt anyone here thinks politics are irrelevant. We just understand basic courtesy. If your goal is indeed to influence change, you do a massive disservice to the cause by acting immature and injecting your politics into other conversations.

Quite likely this year we will have federal law that will allow selling cars with fully unsupervised self-driving, in which case the insurance/liability will obviously land on the maker of the system, not person present in the car.

This is news to me. This context seems important to understanding Tesla's decision to stop selling FSD. If they're on the hook for insurance, then they will need to dynamically adjust what they charge to reflect insurance costs.

I have a Model Y with AI hardware version 4. It is phenomenal at self-driving, and if your impression of FSD is a year old or older, then you are woefully out of date in understanding where the tech is today. If I could, I would send my own grade school child off to her friend's houses and extracurricular activities in my car unaccompanied. It is safer than buses, taxis, and me. Not since Tesla created the first economically viable EV for the American public have I been as excited about a revolution in automotive technology. Other than the fact that Tesla still needs people out there manually driving to generate training data, I don't think Tesla should be selling cars at all. I fully support this move, and all I have to say is thank God for Waymo, so we can have good competition in the Robotaxi market.

I'm done listening to pundits doubt Elon. I haven't seen Wall Street forecast future economic and technological trends well at all. Elon has created an EV market, caught falling rocket boosters, created the leading AI "nonprofit", and launched a worldwide satellite internet service, mostly in the face of rent seeking financial professionals and hacker news SSEs calling him dumb. I'm not sure what else a man needs to do to prove he deserves a little deference in his strategic decisions.

This entire comment section has a lot of polarizing statements that are unverifiable and can hide behind the fog of truth. Yours is not one. Yours is easily verifiably false:

https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+genocide+site:news.yc...

For all intents and purposes, Xi is worth far more than anyone in the west could dream of. It may not be reflected in stock certificates and bank balances, but if money is just the potential energy of power, Xi can do more than every US billionaire combined.

The US definitely peaked a long time ago, and we're in the slow demise phase of its empire, but I think China has already peaked as well. They have the same obesity and consumerism crises that have plagued the US. Add to that a demographic implosion, and I think the best they can do is hope for 20 more years.

I suppose Rule of Force is still a rule, so you aren't wrong per se

LLVM and Linux get more cash than they can spend. GNU stuff is comparatively impoverished because everyone assumes they'd do it for free anyway. Stuff that ships on a Canonical desktop or RHEL default install gets lots of cash but community favorites like KDE need to make their own way, etc... Also just to be clear: node is filled with povertyware and you should be extremely careful what you grab from npm.

This is often the problem with charity in general. It's hard to find good organizations that actually need your money. Great ones self-sustain on their own revenue. Good ones are saturated with donations from their own users. There's just a small sliver of projects that are awesome, and could productively use financial support. From personal experience, identifying these is often far more costly than the act of writing a check.