Jcampuzano2

Prefacing this by saying it may sound insensitive but from my experience shopping and getting things to eat used to be things people would do with their children and was part of growing up and learning what adults do.

In my opinion this scenario may actually end up promoting unhealthy habits for your children which is what these companies want.

This is a question that's going to sound stupid and maybe insensitive, but that aside - how do you think people managed to do this in your exact same scenario for the last 50+ years without having a service like this?

Our own parents went through this exact scenario that you mentioned plenty of times before any of this even existed without having the to pay the $10 fee.

I don't really understand how the personal economics for this work out for the majority of the population.

You'll always get some people who argue that time is money and that the saved time that people have from ordering from these services is an opportunity cost. But the reality is I'd wager that for probably 99% of the population, this is actually not true and the economics doesn't work out favorably after accounting for all the fees.

So then, all that is really left is convenience. And personally, I don't really find it that convenient at all. Often times the time it takes for an order to land on your doorstep is meaningfully longer than it would have taken for you to drive to the store and pick it up yourself.

In other words - these services really just profit off of laziness. And the sad part is I think we're just promoting a lazy society overall with lots of the newer services being offered.

I'm honestly curious. What line do you think the left crossed first? There is nothing in my mind that comes even close to the lines that have been crossed by this administration.

Just that line alone makes me think you're far less centrist than you claim to be.

And interestingly enough, the last place I would ever want to get a burger nowadays is McDonald's.

This is why I said "repeatedly" i.e. a pattern has already emerged.

And in most companies I've worked at you are the one being held responsible for a PR/feature not being merged or finished on time - at least in my experience. You're often working on a different team from the people doing reviews, so in a large enough company they are just a faceless/nameless person from the perspective of your PM.

Not gonna lie, I've had the PR issue before.

The solution? Blast the PR into your shared slack noting that it isn't being reviewed on time because maybe XYZ person is busy.

Watch how fast they are suddenly free to review when their name is attached to something in public.

The real solution is to simply fire these people. There is no good excuse for ignoring requests repeatedly besides laziness or self importance.

> Harpe accepted responsibility for sharing her credentials but argued that firing her was excessive.

> In her appeal, Harpe said her husband was a certified federal law enforcement officer and that every search was conducted for law enforcement purposes.

> “The violation occurred because I gave my husband, who is a certified law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, access to my Flock account,” Harpe wrote. “Every search he conducted was for law enforcement use only and not for personal gain.”

There seems to be a subset of law enforcement officers who fundamentally don't understand privacy, checks and balances, and responsibility. They believe they should have unrestricted access to everyone else and that they are above us all.

Firing her was not excessive, it is the bare minimum. Officers should be held to a higher standard, not lower. She and her husband should be in a jail cell.

This is expected. A lot of these companies that are closing their doors make a large portion of their revenue based off of ads and upsells which agents can easily be instructed to ignore, and don't interact with like a human.

Another more blunt way to say it is that people can instruct their agents to look out for their best interests (and while there are cracks they continue to get better at this), and companies hate that.

People will work around it similar to how we've worked around with adblockers for years, and it will just become a game of attrition as these companies work to preserve their moats until they find a way to preserve this revenue stream off of people's agents.

Stop being disingenuous, it takes a literal 2-second search to find a plethora of examples.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50141449

Dude you could literally just type any of the company's names and add the word "lawsuit" after it and see a plethora of lawsuits that were either lost or settled, and the majority of them are privacy related.

Its hard to believe just how many of you are this defensive of these companies and are just completely disingenuous, as if they give a shit about you.

I literally just typed "google lawsuit" and these came up.

https://www.federalcellularclassaction.com/

https://www.googleassistantprivacylitigation.com/file\

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-approves-68-million-goo...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/new-mexico-jury-finds-fa...

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/...

Combined, their companies have broken basically every law in the book that you could when it comes to privacy and copyright.

"It belongs to all of us"

For the low entry fee of ~$200 a month you too can escape the permanent underclass - which is more than some countries average citizen makes in an entire year.

Oftentimes I'm buying maybe a tool or a part or something like that which isn't necessarily available in my local hardware store.

Having a predictable delivery date for that on top of it most of the time being way faster than anywhere else is really nice. If I buy some of these somewhere else I might wait weeks for a small part due to logistics issues or low availability compared to Amazon

Not all purchases are things that are just consumable/materialistic. I find most of the time the stuff I buy on Amazon nowadays are things like this, where I want something I need but can't easily get locally or am too busy to go out and get during stores hours.

At this points its an IQ test. Stupid people still google exactly what heinous stuff they plan to do and think thats gonna fly.

> “No more hand-written code” and that the game will be “generated with full AI workflows,” employees were reportedly “stunned,” which many hoped the news was some kind of sick joke.

The biggest surprise to me is that they're reporting that the employees themselves are surprised. I don't personally know a single dev who would or even should be "surprised" by this given the current industry state.

This doesn't even really seem headline news worthy. Practically every large company you've ever heard of is doing exactly the same thing right now. And I know very few devs who actually hand-write basically anything right now even if its just an unspoken truth.

At my job it's essentially the same. Everyone is actively encouraged to use AI to move faster and barely anybody writes code by hand.

Note this is not me making a value judgement saying this is good or bad, its just my observation. Having very little hand-written code is quickly becoming the norm.

Interestingly unlike other Meta models this one seems to take a pretty big jump in pricing, as opposed to the prior ones, where they typically came out at a highly discounted price compared to every other model.

Maybe its a signal they think they've now cracked into the frontier and are willing to actually price similarly vs just trying to get users with discounted but maybe slightly worse results?

$4/$20 in vs out making it higher than Sol and on par with Opus.

A lot of the games being ported/reconstructed were made at a time where consumer hardware was up to or even more than an order of magnitude worse than what most people have access to today.

So that probably helps contribute to why they still run smoothly even in WebAssembly/WebGPU. Even if the overhead was like 5x worse (pretty sure its nowhere near that, closer to maybe 1.5-2x in certain cases), it'd probably still run pretty smooth.

No it doesn't.

The point of decomps/recomps was never for some altruistic reason related to skill or art.

The point was people wanting to play games. This just adds to that. Yes - the people who did it before were skilled, smart and deserve recognition. But these ports are exactly that - ports so that people can play their old games or relive them.

"Lobbying is a form of advocacy that legally attempts to influence policy decisions"

I think there's a problem with definitions here. How the general public, especially here in the U.S., tends to think of lobbying is essentially always in the form of monetary value or gifts. In an ideal world, this probably should be banned for fairness reasons. Smaller institutions would always have necessarily less influence and power over policy.

In theory any exchanges of monetary value or gifts should be well documented and must be disclosed. In actuality, it's much harder to document than meets the eye. There are so many ways around it that it's almost worth saying it doesn't exist (admittedly it seems especially egregious in the US but I'm no expert on how its done elsewhere).

But then, at the same time if we conclude that it's hard to document then it's hard to ban it. Its just a slippery slope all around. Institutions must be allowed to petition their government, but making sure that doesn't go too far and lend itself to corruption is difficult to enforce.

So that is likely where the author and the rest of us lead to the conclusion that the eventual result of lobbying as its implemented in essentially everywhere in the world is corruption.

Just because something is proven and shown to be true doesn't mean that it's always practical.

The proof can be entirely valid even if it's not actually reasonable to implement and requires an enormous size lookup table - but it still is a meaningful mathematical result and makes progress.

I'm sure there are plenty of times where originally something was proven and thought to be completely impractical but then later had niche use cases or was the bedrock for solving other cases. And the opposite is true: there remain plenty of proofs of things that are mathematically certain but will in all practicality never be useful.

Working at other places. There used to be a thing called competition - where you'd pay more to attract people to leave elsewhere. Now companies stifle this and collaborate to artificially to keep wages down.

Instead they just throw their hands up and call it quits, hiring elsewhere instead.

This has honestly been one of if not the only thing I have agreed with the Trump administration on. It also seems like something that has had bipartisan support (at least among the general public), but nobody wanted to rock the boat on these companies that provide so much funding in the form of "donations" and lobbying.

Abuse of the H1B system is pretty widespread if you look at the types of roles that these companies submit applications for. I'm convinced that if you aren't looking for someone who is literally a PhD candidate, lead of their field you can probably find someone somewhere who can write a damn REST API.

> Every single H1b employee I’ve seen comp for was comparable anyone else on the team at their same level.

This is exactly the problem. That reasoning alone is what allows companies to outsource to save money if you think on a larger scale. If systematically every company just says, oh we can't get American talent, but doesn't increase wages to incentivize for more local talent and simply hires abroad it stagnates wages for all. There is no incentive to raise effective wages if we can just continue bringing in more people for the same wage.

Let alone the fact that I am not convinced that we don't have enough talent for a good portion of the roles as advertised.

Research grade PhD level candidates doing novel work I can believe, but getting another person who writes more REST API's and dashboards or ETL jobs I refuse to believe.

There are companies that spend the equivalent of that in a single day on tokens. Lets not wage war against one person here.

Its the equivalent of telling individual people they are the problem when it comes to leaving their living room lights on when not in the room or they don't recycle all their stuff correctly when companies/corporations have orders of magnitude more waste.

I always find the time/token differences between the xhigh and the max effort levels for Claude models absolutely insane.

Even more so, because in a lot of their benchmarks they use the max models. I honestly think I'd rather these labs use their xhigh models as the default for benchmarking instead since I don't think the average person is even using max.

I honestly don't even think this is worth arguing about.

Consciousness isn't sufficiently defined. We have people who literally say that most animals don't have a conscious, and then a whole other side of the spectrum that says that they do. Given that it's no wonder that people argue about this for AI as well, and therefore it's basically pointless until we can sufficiently define consciousness itself and have a definitive test for consciousness.

If I were to use my own definition of consciousness I would say no because I would not feel bad "unplugging"/killing an AI, whereas I would for most living things. And that's as far as I really care about it.

I replied to it there, but his reply is either intentionally obtuse or he entirely missed the point.

I'm unfortunately inclined to think its the first because a reply as such from anybody who thought about this for even a minute would realize his reply has literally nothing to do with the original issue.

You could turn it on its head and it could be exactly the opposite - that the people who are the most angry, sarcastic, etc are exactly the kind of issues that you should automatically close and ban from creating issues for being non-civilized productive contributors.

Doesn't have to be used for prioritization purposes. Obviously a little annoyance is to be expected at times, but you could explicitly ban egregious angry behavior in your project.

The only reason alcohol is still legal is the long societal history and how ingrained it has been into most cultures for such a long time.

If we "discovered" alcohol today and didn't have it before it would certainly be illegal, or at the very least doing anything drunk would be way more severe of a punishment.

There are much safer and less dangerous vices available nowadays, but the liquor industry doesn't want to let go.