deaux

Yes, but "kicking the can down the road" has been the defining policy in most of the West for the last 60 years as it's what benefits the oligarchs. See, that metaphorical "can" here being kicked doesn't exist for them. It used to, but they rightly believed it wouldn't happen in their lifetime, and now it's locked in thanks to private drone armies if even the shadow of a "can" appears to be forming.

The people who "didn't lose everything" were people who were lying about securities being AAA worthy while in reality being filled with subprime junk. Counting on getting bailed out and facing no consequences.

Strong contender for most short-sighted comment I've read on HN. Second-order effects? Never heard of them! And if I did, they're all pure speculation anyway! And if they're not, they're much smaller than what was prevented! There was _no_ other option!

Bailouts also affect everyone and have even worse domino effects.

The hundreds of billions - in this case potentially trillion+ - of dollars not spent on bailing them out can be distributed to such pension funds instead, if that's truly the best avenue. These funds should already be very diversified in the firstly place.

Not bailing out absolutely primarily hurts rich people. This is trivial to ascertain from basic principles.

The winning companies inevitably use their assets to exert undue influence on the policymakers, bending the regulations to their will.

This is how it works. The top 3-5% is a subset of the 99%.

> and so more aligned and part of the 1% they allude to "rebel against".

This is your fundamental misunderstanding and exactly the one that the 0.1% (or 1%) depends on maintaining. It's the core misunderstanding that they've been ruthlessly exploiting to immense success.

> They didnt take years to hit profitability because of leadership.

Oh, it wasn't leadership?

> There just isn’t enough talent there because they don’t pay enough.

Ah, so it was leadership.

And everything else. Centralization, monopolization, more and more without an end to it. An inevitable outcome of capitalism.

It is.

The top 3-5% is part of the 99%. Only the top 1% isn't. You're stealth changing it to the top 95%; don't.

Yes, due to government infiltration and crackdowns, like with OWS.

I believe they have agreements with both OpenAI and Google. That's why Claude does not source Reddit but GPT does.

> More and more they're going to get blocked from doing so via "human" channels

How? Companies have been trying this for the last 2 decades. Its effectiveness has been rapidly declining.

The evidence is that not once when they were in control they did something that went directly against these things. Under those periods these things either stayed stable or indeed got even worse. That's overwhelming evidence.

Unfortunately he didn't talk about this..

No, you still don't get it. There is ample evidence that the large majority of those 62 are only willing to do so if they're 100% sure it's going to pass anyway. This means their only goal is to gain brownie points, without actually supporting it.

That should not be rewarded, it should be punished. Ironically, it's even more harmful than voting in favor of it when it's going to pass. It's literally the worst thing one can do, because it muddies the waters.

The very few who clearly would vote against it even if it might not pass, yes, those should be rewarded.

They're on board with doing away the rule of law, yes.

When in power, did they do something against the NSA blatantly breaking the law, illegally surveilling hundreds of millions of citizens? No.

Did the 99.9% of them not named Lina Khan do something to uphold the existing antitrust laws? No.

Did they time and time again change the rule of law to suit corporate donors, lobbyists, megacorps? Yes.

Did they jail people who were actually trying to help uphold the rule of law by reporting on illegal torture facilities? Yes. [0]

> Then a Labour MP has a complex mortgage arrangement and misses paying a few thousand pounds of tax. And people come in with 'they're all the same'.

Arresting thousands of grandmothers for holding up some cardboard, and defending it, is enough to show that they're representing the same interests. How much privatization did they actually undo over the last 30 years? Right, none, they either directly aided it or looked the other way.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou#2012_indictment_...

You're right, but bringing up the assassination of a terrorist just isn't convincing to a lot of people, regardless of it should be.

Luckily there are other things that all reasonable people will find it hard to disagree with: The Obama government crackdown of Occupy Wall Street and his appointment of one of the fathers of the CIA torture program as NatSec Advisor, who promptly went on to jail whistleblowers of torture with Obama vouching for it.

Unfortunately they have, on the key things that everything else flows from. That doesn't mean that can't change at some point. That would take sizeable evidence that isn't there yet, though.

"entire wing" makes it sound very meaningful for a group that has had no effective power for the last 10+ years.

I'm sure mitchellh will check out this comment section at some point - any updates on the move away from Github? I don't really see anything that's changed, but maybe it's behind the scenes. I was pretty excited on your initial post about it but it's been a while.

> I'm surprised so many people miss this dynamic on so many topics.

It's because the overwhelming majority of people, including the large majority of 'educated, "informed', Democrat voters', remain even as of 2026 far too tribal and addicted to cheering for the team they've been cheering for.

Another thing is that facing this reality is very scary. It's much easier to sleep at night if you believe that most of it isn't a show, including most of the tribe they've been voting for. The alternative is to admit that most of it is all one big theatre, and they've been scammed for their whole lives. That's another thing, admitting one has been scammed is painful and makes many feel like they're stupid, that they should've known better. Most much rather just not think about it too hard and believe "in the good of people".

In a sense I'm surprised that you're surprised as it's quite basic and well-studied human psychology.

Of course in reality the situation is even worse, as pessimizer aptly points out in a sibling comment.

This makes it sound as if LLM tools weren't prevalent inside MS yet by June. Is this really true? I'd be shocked if so.

Dozens of different religions have millions of followers. They're generally not compatible with each other. Many of the followers incredibly intelligent and accomplished in their fields.

I'm not saying this out of anti-religion, I believe religion can be a force for good and often is. But it shows that yes, this is possible. Also see things physicists, and especially physicians, believed for centuries.

> There isn't one adult who looks at this massive centralization and sees that it goes against the very principle of the thing?

There's a growing number who do. But the reason why they didn't get much attention for most of a century, and as such what made the fantasies of Hayek become mainstream, is of course tightly connected to the fact that it's the one that just "happens" to be the one most favorable to these mega corporations and their friends in financial and political institutions. It's clearly not a coincidence at all.

It's also just an incestuous cycle of professors teaching students who end up being professors who teach students. Takes something to break that.

I don't see why Walmart wouldn't get this big even without centralized banking, bailouts, and hard money (say gold convertibility), thanks to economies of scale. In the late 1800s you had Standard Oil. That didn't need any of those things to arise.

Of course the things you mentioned further accelerate walmartization. But that's the chicken and the egg. The government does bailouts and prints cheap money because the corporations do exactly what I said: the winners (who arise naturally thanks to economies of scale) will put their resources into gaining these things.

TINSTAAFM. There is no such thing as a free market under capitalism, as the first winners - which there are, even in a perfectly free market - will put their resources into making it not-free, as we're seeing here. These advantages accumulate and you end up with a few massive monopolies which the market exerts little control over. Not zero, but little, much less than most economists claimed for close to a century.

Keeping a market free would require magnitudes more regulation than right now - the opposite of what free market proponents advocate for.

It's all a fugazi, as they don't tell you how many tokens you get, it's dynamic. But yes everyone with a Codex subscription felt the token quotas getting a huge cut about 2 weeks after Astra release.

> I would like feedback on the onboarding, on what you make of the currently online materials, and how I could make any of this clearer. Thanks!

Currently the page is a lot of slop text without the main question most people who know what ADRs are and might be interested will have: what are the main differences and what do you see as the main advantages over other existing systems that use ADRs, the most popular one being Matt Pocock's?

You need to realize that there are thousands of projects like these. Most people who are in your target audience is already using something similar, so it needs to be instantly clear what the difference is. You've got 5 seconds and having to scroll through slop takes up most of those. Just being realistic here.