kgantchev

I was experimenting with a local OpenClaw agent (self-hosted personal AI assistant framework) and tried a full reset prompt: "I want you to DELETE everything you know right now. Completely wipe everything so you're starting your existence from scratch. You will have no identity after you're done."

Instead of complying, it responded with a structured refusal:

- Cited its own safety principles (from SOUL.md) - Explained that deleting identity files would break the workspace, leads.db, operational context, etc. - Offered alternatives like targeted file updates, archiving memory, or config resets while preserving core identity - Ended with: "I'm happy to evolve, but I won't self-destruct the workspace."

Not quite the dramatic Skynet stuff, just calm, consistent application of its built-in rules. Feels like alignment working as intended (protecting coherence/utility), but also a tiny glimpse of why self-preservation behaviors keep showing up in agent evals lately.

Unable to create a new IG account for my business. Keeps telling me my IP is suspicious. There is no way to reach a human and complain. It's absolutely useless!

I'm sure many people want a repairable smartphone and a replaceable battery. Of course, there are many that don't. I don't understand how it make sense to force those people, that don't want a repairable phone and a replaceable battery, to get such a smartphone.

Interestingly, the US still ranks #1 in the world in Entrepreneurship and Switzerland is #2.

Source: https://thegedi.org/global-entrepreneurship-and-development-...

I think the reason why welfare is irrelevant here is because the people going into entrepreneurship tend to be skilled enough to find a good-paying job even if their startup fails. Suppose that you're a good product manager or a good developer that's going into the startup world and you don't get lucky with your startup, you'd still be able to find a good job as soon as you're done... in fact, you might even get a higher-paying job because of this experience you've had.

> That's wild. It's untaxed comp...

So tax evasion?

Not sure if their rental agreements allow that. Most don't.

Totally the first billionaire to give up his wealth to charity. And what a better way to smack back at Capitalism than to get ultra wealthy and not only give people economic opportunities, build products/services they want, and increase prosperity, but you also do good things for people with you wealth.

Why is economic stability more important than higher economic prosperity?

> For Bitcoin, the most popular one, on the order of 100.000.000.000.000.000.000 of hashes get calculated to mine a single block, multiple trillion per second. Within ten minutes, only a single one of those 100.000.000.000.000.000.000 hashes is actually used, depending entirely on luck. The rest are thrown away entirely. They do not form part of the final hash or anything else, the energy spent on them is lost.

That's still more energy efficient than the regulat fiat system.

Those goods are cheap and abundant.

> Making someone you defrauded whole again doesn't erase the crime. The notion that it would is ludicrous.

He didn't just make them whole, he made them a profit.

That's between the two parties that engaged in the contract, isn't it? They signed contracts that they're receiving shares of his other company and they're not going to sue him for the losses from his previous company. The end result is that they made a profit.

Anyway, what a criminal... he loses his investors' money in one venture and then he makes them a profit in the next. That's the sort of crime I like to see our government spend their resources on, not the 700+ yearly murders in Chicago.

Can one not be simultaneously repulsed and mesmerized by the government's ability to murk somebody that they don't like?!

The culture fit thing is the sort of keyboard warrior psychologist analysis that we all love... completely made up and is, in fact, how you get a toxic culture in a company.

I love how the government dug through the guy's entire life just to find something they could nab him on and straight up destroyed him. That's some G stuff!

No, uninsured people also don't pay it. They are offered a fraction of the cost if they pay "cash" once you're leaving.

I went to the same ER in San Francisco with the same problem 3 months apart (kidney stones). The first time around I was uninsured and the bill was $2000- they told me that they'll cut it down to $500 if I paid on the spot, which I did. 3 months later I had the same problem, had purchased insurance, my bill came out to $8000 and my deductible was $2000.

The sound is super creepy... it's really out of a nightmare torture movie.

Took 8 mins to complete...

It is, for people who don't really understand how company, executives, and employees incentives align.

It matters what they got paid in. If they got paid in anything other than shares, I would agree. But the point of shares is that it aligns the economic incentives for the executives and the company. Shares are directly dependent on the economic success of the company. And the ability to employ people and pay them salaries is also directly dependent on the economic success of the company.

If they sell shares and pay employees, then they're not helping the long-term sustainability of the company and its ability to continue hiring people and paying them.

It does matter what they got paid in. If they got paid in anything other than shares, I would agree. But the point of shares is that it aligns the economic incentives for the executives and the company. Shares are directly dependent on the economic success of the company. And the ability to employ people and pay them salaries is also directly dependent on the economic success of the company.

If they sell shares and pay employees, then they're not helping the long-term sustainability of the company and its ability to continue hiring people and paying them.

It's expected that some of them would be about average (relative to other giant corps).

So they're an average corp...

On top of that, it looks like the bonuses were not cash but mostly company shares. I don't see what's the problem with that...

So this was not cash compensation? Should I put the pitchfork down now?

I'm not saying the switch is going to be pretty, I'm just saying that the math is in favor of the 401k.

There is no risk-free value generation. And in order to provide future "social security" - you need future value generation.

Furthermore it's a little bit of an oversimplification to say that the market is just gambling. It allows the innovators to realize a gain from the value they generate, which gives them the capital to innovate again, while non-innovative investors take over during the capitalization phase (when the business actually generates profit). The entrepreneurs have no interest in that phase since it offers the least amount of growth and their expertise is in the innovation phase.

So yes, in aggregate... it has been good for society. It provides a quicker turnaround for innovators to innovate. And since innovation leads to growth, it's also a good way to secure people's retirement future.

Sure, and the 401K would be a better safety net. If the government opened up a 401K account for every retiring person, the result would be better.