HN user
My impression is that lots of companies that deal exclusively with the US govt are doing fine, but it doesn't seem like they'd draw the best talent or become the biggest companies. If that's OpenAI's fate, I'm okay with it.
I canceled my sub a while back and figured hey - worst case, I saved some money (since I subscribe to multiple AI services). Regardless, casting your one vote with your money is important.
"You are what you won't do for money." is a quote that seems apt here. Anthropic might not be a perfect company (none are, really), but I respect the stance being taken here.
Haha I don't have anything more insightful to say other than a: hell yeah.
For what it's worth, I don't know a single person that thinks this is a good idea. However, I'm a software developer living in NYC, so the context of my socioeconomic/cultural bubble isn't representative of the average American's.
A few folks have already posted good points. This is a classic Trump/asshole negotiation tactic. This distracts from the clamor to release the Epstein files.
But what I think is pretty depressing to me is that, as someone else posted, lots of people (even the ones I personally know who don't like Trump) are just so sick of politics and inured against all this madness that they prefer to think about other things. There's also a feeling of helplessness, as it's true that there's not much that an individual can do to affect immediate, meaningful change. My best friend and I went door knocking in PA in 2024 to try to turn out votes for Kamala Harris. He was super passionate about politics. Since then he's shrugged and has literally said to me, "Well, we tried. Let's just focus on our own individual lives." When I try to bring this topic up with other folks, including my best friend, I often get a - "Well they voted for this. Our live are still good. Let them suffer." And when tariffs and other international relations, such as Greenland come up, most people I know tend to just shrug and don't have much to say.
It's a really strange and interesting phenomenon I've observed. Since I strongly believe that smart phone and social media addiction have deranged most individuals, I of course have a bias to think that most people are a mixture of easily distracted by this very distressful situation and psychologically uncomfortable with the aforementioned feeling of not being able to do anything with an immediate result, i.e. no instant gratification that we've been conditioned to expect. But then I read books about history, and it seems like this behavioral pattern isn't unique to this smart phone era, so maybe it's just human nature. Most people probably don't believe in an abstract principle strongly enough to really sacrifice or even be that uncomfortable about it. I'd like to think this isn't the case, so I've tried to modulate my conversations to pleading with people I know (again, most of whom are against Trump and all this), to at least have a conversation where we can agree this sucks. But then, it's another maddening thing, where a lot of folks have told me - That's obvious, why do we need to talk about it.
Regardless - I can only speak for myself when I say that I am wholly, 100%, and passionately against this. I'm just guessing, but I suspect that your confusion on why there's no strong movement against this stems from a large-scale prisoner's dilemma (most individuals here are optimizing for their own local maxima, which leads to our collective minima), and the distressing phenomenon that most humans probably don't like to just be assholes, they try to follow the rules and norms of society, but we have here an asshole who doesn't, so it's difficult to combat him and this administration.
Sigh. Sorry for the long post. Maybe it helps. I don't know, it's a strange time. Even taking the time to at least explain what I've personally witnessed is only my attempt to try to put out the right karma in the universe against this anti-intellectual, indecent behavior.
Dilbert was great, and one of my favorite comics for a long long time. But yeah. Adams turned out to be kinda a jerk, at best. Of late, I've kinda concluded that no single piece of art or single artist is so great that I can't live a full life without it, regardless of how much I love said work or artist. I think individuals should have the right to read and enjoy Dilbert, but I also think if you don't like him and can't let that go, don't give your limited time and attention to the comic. There are lots of other great comics out there!
I think he literally said white people should stay away from black people.
I forget which video it is and don't want to re-watch it anyways. I Googled the specific quote and it sounds about right with my memory (which admittedly could be faulty):
"I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people."
"Just get the f— away. Wherever you have to go, just get away".
I guess we could discuss whether this is straight up racist, but it sounds pretty bad to me.
FWIW - I don't 100% agree with you, but I did want to say thanks for at least posting your thoughts, and qualifying them.
(Adding my comment since there's a good amount of pushback, most of which I roughly agree with, but I think it's important to say thanks for maintaining a civil dialogue and discussion where we don't see 100% eye-to-eye. This also goes for all those who are replying to you as well. It's great to have civil discourse.)
tl;dr - Heather Cox Richardson!
My original mini-essay (heh):
It hasn't 100% worked for me, but it's been progress for me to:
- turn on grayscale - don't use any social media - turn off all recommendations for the two indulgences I do have (YouTube, Reddit)
The no recommendations has been especially helpful because I only have my subscription feed, and I can curate that.
As far as news goes - Economist is a good one imo. Weekly news is a fast enough cadence that also filters out noise and nonsense from the knee-jerk, instant reaction news cycles. I've also found the New Yorker to be pretty great, since their pieces are so long that they're usually about events that happened weeks to months ago.
But +1 to others' comments: maybe you don't need to know everything, either. Reading books about history, even recent history, has been a great way for me to fulfill my need to understand our society.
Despite all that I've typed above, if you really want to get regular news consumption, I highly highly recommend Heather Cox Richardson. She distills the daily news and often adds historical context.
I can't speak for firmretention, but I'm guessing it's the idea of a billionaire who's rightly lauded for his investment skill getting a little greenwashed with "donations" that aren't really no-strings-attached donations. It's also a little dystopian to have a dorm described as:
“Munger Hall, in comparison, is a single block housing 4,500 students with two entrances,” McFadden said, and would qualify as the eighth densest neighborhood on the planet, falling just short of Dhaka, Bangladesh.
It is a good idea, but I am curious whether it's a fire hazard to have only two entrances for such a big and dense building? Maybe this is misreported, I don't know.
In general, though, I personally do think that donating money and micromanaging how that money is spent does come off weird and disingenuous. You have every right to do it, but it's not really in the spirit of a pure donation to me at that point.
Again, I can't speak for firmretention. Their comment just tickled this own natural reaction I had in myself to the linked article.
Great comment :)
I used to be pretty into junk bonds during my MBA (I don't do this at all professionally, so YMMV with my commentary here), and I think, as usual, a lot of context would help with understanding what this could mean, which ajross described. In the most simple terms, as other have also mentioned, it's basically non-investment grade companies (and there are a lot of em - you'd be surprised at the names on the list) now have to pay more for money. This could mean that investors are worried and want more compensation for risk, which means that the reality of the economy is shakier. OTOH, it could mean that investors are being more realistic, and not letting risky companies just have cheaper money to make value destructive decisions could be a good sign of sanity in the markets, and thus (in theory) the economy. It's hard to know with a simple headline or article. Even if you dig into all the numbers and do all the reading, it's still hard to know since the world is really complex.
I look at this as a single data point amongst many re: how I end up assessing my feelings about the economy. Truth be told, I'm probably more concerned about what lots of news outlets are discussing - all the AI capex spend. Apparently there's more financing being negotiated with fewer restrictions on the debt, which tends to be a really bad sign of a bubble.
As a longtime loyal subscriber to Stratechery... I kinda agree. But as the other commenters did point out, this does reflect how the market seems to feel about OpenAI, at least. (Meta - I'm less sure of; Thompson does fawn over Meta quite a bit, I personally think it's too much and seems to not fully reflect reality, but man do they really cane it when you see their usage numbers, so maybe he's right.)
I did think his GPT-5 commentary was good, insofar as picking up the nuance of why it's actually better than the immediate reactions I, at least, saw in the headlines.
Where I do agree with you is how Stratechery's getting a little oversaturated. I'm happy Ben Thompson is building a mini media empire, but I might have liked it more when it was just a simple newsletter that I got in my inbox, rather than pods, YouTube videos, and expanding to include other tech/news doyens. Maybe I'm just a tech media hipster lol.
This is true. It's interesting to see the incentives of the industry though - this business model was less evenly distributed, but given how tough it is to make money in games, more companies are doing this.
https://www.matthewball.co/all/stateofvideogaming2025 had an in-depth (very very..in-depth) dive into all these trends.
What do you think a good faith person trying to persuade should do with this information?
(Legit question, not trying to throw out a gotcha. I've been wracking my brain about this, since I spiritually agree w/ you that throwing zingers aren't gonna help us all get on the same page, but I've been at a loss as to how to actually discuss these topics with people that seemed to have been taken in by...whatever it is that's going on.)
FWIW, outside of the chapter bwfan123 references, this entire book is an excellent read. Great stories and even better writing - it's one of my personal faves :)
I went full grayscale on my phone and it really helped. It just made my phone way more boring.
I also highly recommend turning off history in the YouTube app, if you all use it. It then surfaces...zero recommendations. It's blissfully quiet.
I do agree that $80 for digital is a little insulting. Games, in general, probably should be $100+, and consoles for ~$400 is about right if simple inflation from the 90s is just taken into account. Games are now longer, have more production, and cost more to produce. Additionally, cost per unit of entertainment time for games has much more value than most other entertainment options, theoretical infinite Netflix-type streaming notwithstanding.
https://www.matthewball.co/all/stateofvideogaming2025 has a great and extensive dive into this topic.