BugsJustFindMe

That's $9k/mo free spending _after_ taxes, _after_ childcare, and _after_ exorbitantly luxurious housing.

The concept of "mutuals" is fundamentally influencer-centric. A person who uses their account for reading rather than just posting only hurts themself by refusing to follow an account that doesn't follow them back.

"See who your real friends are" is either:

1) confused branding that conflates two unrelated user domains

2) grossly and manipulatively trying to make people feel bad by pushing the idea that following means friendship and needs to be reciprocal

But this was published yesterday, so they've had time.

> It's "cloaking" by making it appear to have the same bulk thermal properties as it's surroundings.

I'm not sure what you think the difference is?

> I genuinely remember a time not very long ago that people used to say that they would kill for an claude opus 5 model at home

I don't think you're going to be running this 1.6 trillion parameter model at home.

"There's value in allegory but not in things where allegory is employed" is a whiplash statement.

And TNG is neither modern nor was it mainstream when produced, so your actual position here is obscured.

> "the charts below compare it with GPT-5.5, GPT-5.6-Sol, Claude-Opus-4.8, and Claude-Opus-5"

There should be a rule against releasing seemingly-obsolete comparisons without explaining why you're doing it. If you don't give a cost reason, it makes you look like you're trying to hide something.

I'm not saying that the given comparison is inherently bad. I'm saying that they failed to include any useful-to-potential-users reason for why those specific non-current model versions are meaningful.

It's hard to imagine anyone not understanding the value of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory but here we are I guess.

Jaggery is sugar.

> compete in grocery with the real giants in Walmart

In my area Walmart is on Instacart and I've often wondered how that squares with their own delivery service.

> Do you find it, total price charged to card, to be competitive?

Yes. Instacart has low cost retailers like Walmart and Aldi in many areas, and their prices are generally better than Amazon groceries. Now Walmart does also have their own service, so technically you can do that, but then you're limited to just them.

It slows to a stop.

> Apple is now comparing against computers they were selling 7-8 years ago

Apple didn't fully stop selling Intel macs until June 2023. And they compare against the most recent previous model too.

> No freaking way to disable it.

Um. https://imgur.com/a/ydt3MN5

dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50258521

If it comes to that then it comes to that, but starting with the rich still makes sense.

> "The conventional wisdom is that Kevin Bacon is the all-encompassing center of Hollywood..."

Well, yes, but his name also rhymes with "separation", and that's kind of important.

No. Public companies are absolutely allowed to engage in long term strategies like "don't burn the future and reputation of the brand to temporarily juice near-term profit". The reason they don't is because the people making the decisions don't care about the future of the brand and do care about near-term profit.

> The moment a company goes public they're legally required to make stupid, short-term decisions that are worse for everyone

FWIW this is a myth.

I tried searching for "holofernes" and got many paintings not-of-but-aesthetically-similar-to Judith beheading Holofernes. I then typed directly "judith and holofernes" and got similarly undesired results. I know that I'm "holding it wrong" here, but this might not be the last museum after all.

> I would imagine

Please, there's no value in speculation. If they want to answer, they can.

> "sk" vs "SK", "OpenAI" vs "Openai"

That's how Safari copies the goofball smallcaps text styling that The Economist uses for acronyms.

Why do you ask that question when the text is selectable?

> Houston is a great example. It's pretty much the only large city in the US that doesn't have a housing crisis.

Houston is a great example of many things, but being a good place to live isn't one of them. Most of it is a depressed concrete wasteland of sprawling blight and freeway lanes far from any natural beauty with weather that causes people to stay indoors most of the time. I lived there for 20 years and have family there and you could not pay me enough to move back. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/houston-li... https://secrethouston.com/houston-unhappiest-cities-us/

Paris in the middle of a riot is a far better place to live than Houston.

> Just look at the number of children per capita.

Fertility tracks religion. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religion-fer...

The birth rate in Houston has been steadily declining for a long time and is well below replacement. https://kinder.rice.edu/research/declining-fertility-greater...

I'm pretty sure you're still just saying "If you make a place nicer to live, then more people will want to live there, so we should stop making places nicer to live."

Density is not the thing making the prices go up. Local supply lagging behind local demand is what does that. Your two choices are either build more or make living there less desirable compared to somewhere else. There's no third choice.

> nice cities just a couple of hours from them have housing that is essentially free

If nobody wants to live there then tautologically they aren't nice.

AKA the gunshots theory of rent control. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/firing-gunshots-to-keep-rent-...

I'm pretty sure you just said "If you make a place nicer to live, then more people will want to live there, so we should stop making places nicer to live."

Anyway, nobody who has ever been to a major French city believes that they've tried to increase core density. They famously have building height restrictions all over the place. Pretty much the entire city of Paris caps out at 7 stories.

The dragnet nature of the data collection was given as the basis for why the officer's use of the data required a warrant or probable cause, but was not given as the thing in violation itself. The document clearly says that the problem was that the police officer searched the data without a warrant or probable cause, not that the data was collected without a warrant or probable cause.

Here's from the very final conclusion:

> "Alaniz conducted that search ... because he saw her license plate was from California. That search was not supported by probable cause, and it was done without a warrant in violation of Kyle’s Fourth Amendment rights."

And here's from earlier in the document:

> "In the Court’s view, Alaniz did not have enough information to reasonably believe that Kyle was engaged in unlawful conduct"

The court wouldn't be talking that way if the problem were the data collection and not the circumstance of the stop.

> it is within the realm of possibility that Flock’s existing business model will be considered an unconstitutional dragnet.

I agree it is in the realm of possibility. It's just not the thing that has happened here.

Way to completely miss the point in the most embarrassing way possible.

> post title: Federal judge rules Flock violated the fourth amendment

Please fix this wrong title. The judge ruled that searching the data without a warrant or probable cause violated the fourth amendment. It's wrong to say that the problem was the cameras and not the warrantless use of the data.

Literally in the tweet: "police violated the Fourth Amendment by searching [ALPR data] without a warrant"