Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | cwkoss's commentslogin

Does microsoft have the wisdom to predict where this line of technology is headed, and/or the agility to course correct when their predictions don't quite hit the mark?

Cursor blows copilot out of the water in my experience. Man power clearly isn't the most decisive factor in this battle.


Copilot is limited to 64k context window. Even if the underlying model is gemini with 20x that. It’s gotta be a major reason copilot is so bad in comparison. They are all the same sets of models under the hood


No single book has incited more violence throughout history


I've gone back and forth dozens of times about how much religion is responsible for the awful stuff in history vs. just a bunch of selfish and/or very stupid people using it to justify what they wanted to do anyway.

It's easy to say "Deuteronomy says to murder all non believers!" and then point to an example of a Christian killing a Muslim (or something) and assume that that was their motivation, and maybe it was, but also maybe it was just a homicidal maniac who gravitated to this book specifically because they could use it to justify what they were going to do anyway.

It's really tough to say, and I'm not going to pretend I know the answer.

Suicide bombers (e.g. the 9/11 terrorists) might be an example in your favor though. You're probably not driving airplanes into buildings if you don't really believe in what you're doing.

I don't know. As I said, I've gone back and forth.


I don't know, there are books by an Austrian and a German both of which have sparked a large number of deaths.

More to the point though; when the violence is occurring the author's work is used as a justification. If not their work, someone else's would do.


> when the violence is occurring the author's work is used as a justification. If not their work, someone else's would do

This statement falls on its face with any examination. You're implying the Bible is on the same level as, say, Catcher in the Rye. As in, a book that was used as an excuse to kill by an already deranged outlier.

The Bible was explicit law in the history of many countries. Non-practitioners were considered second class citizens. Entire economies were thrown into crusades to rape and pillage people specifically in the name of Christ. Generations of children were indoctrinated into believing this was okay. It's not remotely accurate to say "well if it wasn't this, it would be something else." This is a system, not an accident.

I have conversations to this day with relatives that the crusades were completely okay because it was in the name of God. This is not ancient history, this is what religion does. It's just uncomfortable to say out loud because then we'd be admitting that Christians are, mostly, okay with dehumanizing everyone else.


>The Bible was explicit law in the history of many countries. Non-practitioners were considered second class citizens.

This is true for not just Christianity but also Islam(see Suni/Shia split, treatment of Christians and Jews under Islamic rule) and Buddhists(Key quote from wiki: "However, Buddhists have historically used scriptures to justify violence or form exceptions to commit violence for various reasons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence).

I would say that if you take "Catcher in the Rye" expand upon it you could get a following that reaches the same level as the Bible and have fanatics that will use it's message for justification for violence.

Look at the Hutu/Tutsi conflict, this is not based on religion but still has the same dehumanizing going on.

In the US, there have been several 'feuds' that have members of one family killing another over slights, the Hatfield-McCoy being the most famous.

All it takes is a slight difference to separate groups of people, for example going to a different school.

"The Carolina fans that week were carrying around a poster with the image of a tiger with a gamecock standing on top of it, holding the tiger's tail as if he was steering the tiger by the tail," Jay McCormick said. "Naturally, the Clemson guys didn't take too kindly to that, and on Wednesday and again on Thursday, there were sporadic fistfights involving brass knuckles and other objects and so forth, some of which resulted, according to the newspapers, in blood being spilled and persons having to seek medical assistance. After the game on Thursday, the Clemson guys frankly told the Carolina students that if you bring this poster, which is insulting to us, to the big parade on Friday, you're going to be in trouble. And naturally, of course, the Carolina students brought the poster to the parade. If you give someone an ultimatum and they are your rival, they're going to do exactly what you told them not to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemson%E2%80%93South_Carolina...


> The Bible was explicit law in the history of many countries.

Sources?


Rednote's algorithm is significantly better than reels


I made $400 making tiktoks as a hobby. I would say its much easier to earn money on tiktok, but harder to earn huge sums. A lot of people are currently making ends meet with what they get from Tiktok.


I’ve had a number of videos get over a million views on TikTok, and earned $0 from it. That amount of views on YouTube would earn me a few thousand dollars, minimum, purely from Adsense.


How does that work, does tiktok share ad revenue?


The "reasonable threat" is that TikTok prevented US leaders from being able to control the conversation around Palestine. Nearly half of the country has realized how insane sending tens of billions of dollars to fund genocide is, when previously it was unquestioned.


The idea of moral wars is a myth manufactured by the war propaganda machine.

I wouldn't object to all three of them being tried. I think Zelensky probably has the strongest defense, but I'm not fully informed on the conflict.


So, just to be clear, you think any country that's invaded should just immediately surrender?

So if I invade the US tomorrow with a sharpened stick, they have to hand their country over because any kind of defence is immoral?


This comment is just disingenuous. You know that isn’t what they meant.


https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/16/ukraine-must-i...

"A controversial Amnesty International report asserted that Ukrainian military tactics put civilians in danger. Video footage has since been published suggesting that Ukrainian troops may have executed surrendering Russian officers in the town of Makiivka. Back in 2019, the International Criminal Court (ICC) determined that Ukrainian forces committed possible war crimes against Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine.

To be clear: none of these allegations draws moral or legal equivalency between the acts of Ukrainian and Russian forces. Any alleged crimes committed by Ukrainian officers pale in comparison to the aggression and barbarity Russian forces have demonstrated in Ukraine. But all atrocities must be accounted for, not just those of one’s enemies."


Oh. Aljazeera and Amnesty International Nice combo


Yeah, they are both organizations with very high integrity and credibility...? Kind of perplexed what your worldview even is.


By the way. Crimes agains humanity/war crimes are on different scale. Like perpetrating genocide, stealing children, etc.

Individual crimes are prosecuted as well, but Zelensky hasn't much to do with regular war crap, if it is not systemic and/or basically formalized and encouraged, as is the case in russia.

Russian playbook includes in every occupied town to set up torture/rape station where they put anyone suspicious. You can guess what happens next.


Crimes against humanity/war crimes are on different scale.

You're getting way too cerebral for this thread. The people who say "they're all equally guilty" don't care about such considerations. They're just trying to make a blanket moral relativism argument.

Which basically goes: "They're all bad to some degree, therefore they're all equally bad, or at least we can stop focusing on the one that's obviously much worse than the others."

It's not an argument at all really, but more like an emotional appeal.


Makes sense. Such views seemed always so reductionist to me that they are basically nonsensical and arrogant. You are correct.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

Numerous IDF soldiers and settlers have been photographed wearing or displaying the shape of Greater Israel - a plan to seize land and expand Israel into almost every one of its neighbors territories. Tim Walz even let slip in the debate that "expansion" was a key goal of US support.


The Gaza invasion was never about the hostages. If Israel cared about the hostages they wouldn't have indiscriminately bombed the entire territory. The hostages are dead, and demanding the impossible return of people they killed is simply a pretext:

They want land expansion and the total ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Look up 'Greater Israel'. Tim Walz accidentally let it slip during a debate that this is the goal of the US empires support.


Are there any credible reports (not from US or Israel) of Hamas raping Israelis? I've always thought that was empty warmongering propaganda.


There are a significant number of zionist users on this site that immediately flag any comment or article they percieve as anti-israel.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: