I'm confused. Are you saying specifically that you think the experiences described in this article are for the good of the country? Or do you think they're an exaggeration/lie.
I don’t think that’s what the comment said at all. You’re extrapolating too much.
Explaining the pendulum swinging violently because folks didn’t feel heard is not the same thing as saying that it’s a good thing that the pendulum has swung so violently.
I'm a Trump voter (2016, 2020, and 2024) so I obviously find all this a good thing, just for transparency.
That said, that is tangential and irrelevant to explaining how and why the pendulum swung back as hard as it did.
Trump won his first term in 2016 because Americans were fed up with the Bush+Obama status quo of endless wars and waste. Drain the swamp, fuck the establishment! As the sentiment of the day went; remember Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party? Biden winning 2020 was a sharp rebuke by the powers that be; how dare the people demand change and elect an outsider, how dare the people demand peace and effective government. Biden and Harris's 2024 campaigns likewise were based strictly and ultimately on continuing the status quo; Harris "had no policy" in large part because the "policy" was the status quo.
Trump winning again in 2024 with a historic campaign is a sharp rebuke to that, he is the people's retribution for being denied and refused for so long time and time again. For voters like me and us, NASA and the like having their funding slashed and denied is merely collateral damage for a greater and long-awaited cause.
Or now Gaza. I guess they don’t count trade wars. Dalewyn could have his family deported and still think Trump is doing the right thing. I gave up responding.
As Trump said when an interviewer asked him about Ukraine: "I want people to stop dying." I think most Americans share that sentiment with regards to war, so no, trade wars don't count.
It's objective fact that Trump did not start a single war during his first term (he only inherited wars from his predecessors), his successor Biden immediately went back to starting wars. Americans will not tolerate declarations of war or otherwise military actions on Denmark/Greenland or Panama, we voted for him in large part because he is the first President in a long time who hates wars.
No. More. Wars. This is non-negotiable. Every single warmonger and the military industrial complex can go fuck themselves.
However, if we can get Greenland and the Panama Canal amicably through business/diplomacy then, as an American, why not?
>Dalewyn could have his family deported
If we're here illegally then fuck yeah Trump is doing the right thing; he's just enforcing the law as written. I thought we were all about rule of law?
> However, if we can get Greenland and the Panama Canal amicably through business/diplomacy then, as an American, why not?
was there anything amicable about his recent claims about greenland ?
How do you reconcile having a leader suggesting curing covid with bleach to know how to make government efficients ? Musk couldn't turn twitter back as far as we know either..
You seem to be very confused, among other things, about who started the Ukraine war and why. Gonna guess you probably think Obama started the Iraq war and probably the Civil War and WWII as well.
> It's objective fact that Trump did not start a single war during his first term (he only inherited wars from his predecessors), his successor Biden immediately went back to starting wars.
What war?
Seriously, what war?
I've tried searching for what wars, and found that the only ones started by the US this century were by Bush Jr.; neither Obama nor Biden went to war.
Do you mean the war Russia started by invading Ukraine? The ongoing conflict between Israel and various but changing subsets of their neighbours? Because these were not started by the US, they are outside the control of the US.
> No. More. Wars. This is non-negotiable. Every single warmonger and the military industrial complex can go fuck themselves.
> However, if we can get Greenland and the Panama Canal amicably through business/diplomacy then, as an American, why not?
He refused, when asked, to rule out using military force.
Operation Ocean Shield (2009–2016), International intervention in Libya (2011), Operation Observant Compass (2011–2017), US military intervention in Niger (2013–2024), US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021), US intervention in the Syrian civil war (2014–present), US intervention in Libya (2015–2019), Operation Prosperity Guardian
(2023–present), Israel–Hamas war (2024–present).
This seems to apply in general to that list, e.g. Prosperity Guardian is not even a war, and crucially it is a response to Houthi-led attacks on shipping in the Red Sea so the US also didn't start it. (Which can be described as an escalation that was itself caused by US economic support of Israel, but that kind of geopolitical implications are a never-ending rabbit hole even with 50 years of hindsight that I don't get to benefit from).
Their (and Canada's, Germany's) reason for picking sides in the Syrian civil war is completely opaque from the perspective of normal people like me (if I count as 'normal'…), but again, they didn't start it: civil war.
> if we can get Greenland and the Panama Canal amicably through business/diplomacy then
This is a joke right? I'm not sure 'amicably' means holding a gun to someone's head to get them to do what you want them to do. Trump stated he would use force if necessary.
> No. More. Wars.
Biden also didn't start any wars. Trump is talking about annexing Gaza, and he continues to talk about war with Iran. Trumps aggression is how wars start because it puts everyone on edge.
When Trump starts a war, which seems inevitable unless his advisors get some control, will you then admit it was dumb to vote for Trump? I'm sure you'll explain it away somehow as #winning.
> I thought we were all about rule of law?
I just assume you're trolling at this point. Trump just pardoned people who beat up law enforcement. He also talks about deporting people he simply doesn't like. He's farther from the rule of law than any POTUS in history.
> It's objective fact that Trump did not start a single war during his first term
No, its not. He certainly engaged in an armed conflict with Iran which was not an active conflict before his term.
> his successor Biden immediately went back to starting wars.
No, he didn't.
> No. More. Wars.
Since election, Trump has threatened war in or with Mexico, Denmark, and Panama, as well as the US actively completing the genocide Israel has started in Gaza. “No. More. Wars." Is very clearly not his priority.
NASA is ripe for some cuts. The Senate Launch System is a waste; both Space-X and Blue Origin have cheaper big boosters. There are too many NASA centers. The Space Force can take over Canaveral. The moon base should be all robots.
It sucks that the guy currently in charge of cost cutting has a blatant conflict of interest in getting rid of the SLS. It really does need to go, but he's not the one to do it.
And no Trump supporter can actually spell out clearly what that cause is besides "own the outgroup" and a religious faith in everything getting better for the cult member despite every single piece of evidence pointing to the contrary (unless you already happen to be a billionaire, of course). And I mean religious in the literal sense: a belief that some ill-defined paradise awaits the true believers and it will be worth it in the end even though it kind of hurts that their faces are being gnawed by the leopards (but at least the outgroup’s faces are being eaten too so it’s all right).
The pandemic was a national emergency. Covid was an extremely contagious disease without a lot of existing immunity. The right call was made for the safety of several hundred million Americans. Most other countries made the exact same one.
I wouldn't say most other countries made the exact same call, only because there are plenty of people who think we didn't go far enough. When the comment I was referring to said "Covid response in the US wasn't that bad," I actually wasn't sure whether they were saying the lockdowns weren't that bad or their effectiveness wasn't that bad. (I can kind of assume the former based on the rest of their messaging, but still, there's a range of opinions people had/have about it.)
I'm glad to have lived in a country where they had strict lock downs pre-vaccine. I imagine there are funerals I didn't have to go to as a result. But flip side people could claim I was under martial law etc. stripped of my freedoms.
I'd love the fact that NZ went ahead and banned tobacco cigarettes if I lived there (sad they wimped out on it before it went into effect), but there are plenty of people who'd be very upset about that here in the US. And I'd love it if we banned cannabis again here, but again, there are a lot of people who that'd piss off. I can understand where they're coming from even if I think they're idiots for using recreational (sometimes toxic) drugs.
> I love it when people apply operations research technologies to silly things like video games
To be fair, video games can also be big money. And even if not, some take them very seriously.
I'm glad you're thinking about this. It's always strange to search for a topic, and find a dozen hits, most with one post max, and one which went absolutely viral.
In a world where karma/upvotes/etc actually does contribute to reputation, it seems unfair and arbitrary.
> In a world where karma/upvotes/etc actually does contribute to reputation, it seems unfair and arbitrary.
For the most part I think it doesn’t happen that much on HN. There are maybe a handful of people that I recognize by name because of their volume of comments. But I don’t normally look at or consider how much karma someone has or hasn’t got when I read random comments from random people.
HN took steps specifically to avoid some of the negative effects of karma influencing how comments are perceived by removing the display of how many points each comment has in the discussion under each post.
Usually the only time I click through to someone’s profile specifically to look at their karma is if they said something that seemed purposefully inflammatory and I’m wondering if they have a habit of trolling (and therefore have very low karma), or if it was just a one-off thing that maybe came out wrong or maybe they’re just having a particularly bad day today. Or maybe I’m even just misinterpreting as inflammatory what was not meant like that by them.
But if you do want to know how much karma those that have the most have, since you’re bringing up the topic of karma, there’s also this:
I wonder if instead of a number, users are told what their "karmic trend" is.
Like if your last three comments got upvotes, it would say "you're trending good" or something (and vice versa for downvotes). People's monkey brains get too focused on a single number which inevitably gets tied to their identity/reputation, even on a place like HN where it's essentially invisible.
I wouldn't lose a wink if you decided to hide the karma system completely from us HN users, but I'm sure some would.
What substance? Random people's opinions online are not representative of whole political parties or movements or groups of people....
Hell, pro-Trump people were crying foul when the words of an opening act for Trump were associated with Trump and friends (that Puerto Rico is an island of garbage), this is infinitely more unrelated.
The article summarizes the positions of the Left, by a Left-leaning news org. The article is not about the positions of the the journalist. What more do you want? Harris's isn’t going to write this herself
You're taking an opinion piece summarising viewpoints people on the left are supposedly favourable to as the official position of a political party in the opposite way (e.g. you seem to think that agreeing that there is institutional sexism against women means that you want to be sexist against men or that men in general should be shamed for being men, which is, of course, bullshit).
If you have this absurd stance, what do you think about the literal words of high profile republican politicians? JD Vance comparing Trump to Hitler? Trump misquoting Mein Kampf? Trump saying he'll deport 20 million people? Trump expressing violent misogyny (grab them right by the pussy)? Trump saying he'll save women if they want it or not? Blatant racism against black and latino people?
Those are direct positions of the actual candidates. Wildly more representative than an opinion summary by a journalist.
If you ever listen to Rashida speak, she's one of the most incredibly eloquent people I've heard. Pipe dream for me to ever be as well-spoken as she is.
I actually tested Claude Sonnet to see how it would fare at writing a test suite for a background worker. My previous experience was with some version of GPT via Copilot, and it was... not good.
I was, however, extremely impressed with Claude this time around. Not only did it do a great job off the bat, but it taught me some techniques and tricks available in the language/framework (Ruby, Rspec) which I wasn't familiar with.
I'm certain that it helped having a decent prompt, asking it to consider all the potential user paths and edge cases, and also having a very good understanding of the code myself. Still, this was the first time for me I could honestly say that an LLM actually saved me time as a developer.
All this makes me think making software engineers redundant is really the "killer app" of LLM's. This is where the AI labs are spending most of the effort - its the best marketing after all for their product - fear sells better than greed (loss aversion) making engineers notice and unable to dismiss it.
Despite some of the comments on this thread, despite it not wanting to be true, I must admit LLM's are impressive. Software engineers and ML specialists have finally invented the thing which disrupts their own jobs substantially either via large reduction in hours and/or reduction in staff. As the hours a software engineer spends coding diminishes by large factors so too especially in this economy will hours spent required paying an engineer will fall up to the point where anyone can create code and learn from an LLM as you have just done. Once everybody is special, no one is and fundamentally employment, and value of things created from software, comes from scarcity just like everything else in our current system.
I think there's probably only a few years left where software engineers are around - or at least seen as a large part of an organization with large teams, etc. Yes AI software will have bugs, and yes it won't be perfect but you can get away with just one or two for a whole org to fix the odd blip of an LLM. It feels like people are picking on minor things at this point, which while true, for a business those costs are "meh" while the gains of removing engineers are substantial.
I want to be wrong; but every time I see someone "learning from LLM's", saving lots of time doing stuff, saving 100's of hours, etc I think its only 2-3 years in and already its come this far.
> Yes AI software will have bugs, and yes it won't be perfect but you can get away with just one or two for a whole org to fix the odd blip of an LLM.
Maybe. A lot of places have headcount limits on software devs because of budget constraints. As in, the reason they don't hire more is because they can't afford it, not because there is a shortage of code to write and bugs to give. The more optimistic view is that the nature of being a software engineer will adjust to increased productivity and focus on the parts of the job that LLMs can't do, with the market for experts who are skilled at removing "the odd blip from an LLM". Expertise will also move into areas where there's less or insufficient training data for a particular niche. One way to future proof yourself is to find places where it frequently makes up non existent libraries and is bad at code in a language, and specialize in that.
Why say "the Democrat Party"? The party's name is the Democratic Party. It feels like an attempted slight, but I don't get it, except that I know Donald Trump occasionally says this as well. Which I also don't get as an insult.
He purposefully said "Democrat Party" to publicly identify himself as a right wing Trump supporter. It's a childish right wing shibboleth. He wants you to know he's a Trump supporter who listens to and parrots Fox News and right-wing media and politicians word for word: that's exactly why he and Trump and other MAGA supporters say that, to "virtue signal" their support of Trump. It's just like wearing a bandage on your ear. Look at all the other words he wrote: he's just being a parrot, as a way of announcing his political bias. He's just a concern troll, not serious about what he says, pointedly making that mistake on purpose.
>Remember “Democrat party” is the key right wing shibboleth when describing the Democratic Party. You gave yourself away. There is no such party as the “Democrat” Party in America.
>A shibboleth (/ˈʃɪbəlɛθ, -ɪθ/ ⓘ;[1][2] Biblical Hebrew: שִׁבֹּלֶת, romanized: šībbōleṯ) is any custom or tradition, usually a choice of phrasing or even a single word, that distinguishes one group of people from another.[3][4][5] Shibboleths have been used throughout history in many societies as passwords, simple ways of self-identification, signaling loyalty and affinity, maintaining traditional segregation, or protecting from real or perceived threats.
It's telling that there's no attempt to refute the argument or examples that Biden is incapable of continuing to act as President or that the people around him have been lying to the public about it for months, if not longer.
Reminds me of the classic adage: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.
You loudly and clearly signaled to everyone that you are not arguing in good faith, so you certainly don't deserve a serious response. All you're doing is parroting ignorant uninformed right wing talking points and childish schoolyard bully epitaphs, and it's a complete waste of time taking you seriously, since you have absolutely nothing useful or interesting to contribute, you don't even believe you own words, and you know very well that it's called the "Democratic Party" yet you went out of your way to make that "mistake" on purpose, and you just parrot what you heard without any thought or evidence, so you've forfeit all rights to expecting a response or being taken seriously.
It's supremely ironic that a Trump supporter like you would get his panties in a twist about somebody other than Trump lying in public.
