radixdiaboli

Have you seen a white house press conference lately? It's all just the same talking points. Everyone gets to report on the sound bites. You're choosing to describe these things as if the game theoretics are qualitatively different. Your description is doing more of the work than the game theory.

That's some bar moving. In one case we're saying that even if you report garbage, your competitors are going to occupy the niche without you, therefore something something game theory.

But in this other case, well there's just no value to reporting garbage.

...so why did they unite in this case?

> I find it ironic how on HN anyone advocating to push themselves into a position where they have more options (more income) is met with accusations of being "entitled" or outlandish.

> Let's say my skillset isn't as "senior" as I think

The people from the first sentence were trying to get you to understand the content of the second sentence.

Bro, recruiters are kindof idiots.

I'm gonna be real with you: you need to face the fact that you don't understand the game you're playing.

I know because I was there. I founded a startup that I can make sound impressive. I left when I burnt out, thinking of course what I did was impressive enough to easily land a job. I floundered for 5 years.

Places look at your resume and either see someone who is overqualified (they're right) or someone who hasn't worked on a real project (they're right). If you can't swallow that, you're going to keep beating your head against the wall until you do.

I started refusing any interview that had a live coding exam (I vibed way better with places that did project based exams). I coded my own projects to hone my skills.

Eventually I decided I needed to play the game. What I did was really niche. I took a web dev boot camp and practiced code exams.

Now I have a job where I started at a low salary, but they created a senior position for me in less than a year. It's looking like managing my team will be a thing before year 2. I will get paid less than other people in the industry, but if that ever really bothers me I'll be able to move laterally and make more easily.

This is all to say: suck it the eff up. Your experience is useful, but you're playing a different game. Lower your expectations, get the chip off your shoulder, and maneuver whatever you can find into a win.

Someone has never worked retail. They know they can get away with it because pretty much any corporate store has a policy that employees can't try to stop them. An employee at a local REI was fired for trying to stop one of the daily thefts they were having.

Point being, willingness to engage in violence has nothing to do with it.

TFA is about the US. It cites cases where hand counting has resulted in higher error rates in the US.

Voting machines are have proven to be reliable in the US. Dominion Voting continues to rack up huge defamation wins in court over this. You're just FUDding.

> I don't doubt for a second that the far left would create such laws if they could.

I mean, they could as much as the fringe actors this article is about. I'm not sure what you think is stopping them from going for it in the same fashion.

I honestly feel like we're not even reading the same article. His contention is that MCP, while created for AI, can serve as a universal plugin system. He's writing software that... does that. Not seeing the contradiction.

It's not about the technology per se. There's a difference between setting a price and colluding to create the price.

If the major players in an industry all happened to share all of their data with the same consultant, and the consultant told them all what to set the price to, I imagine you'd have the same legal issue.

> but if there was an AI between these things, then it becomes a universal plugin system

I've reread the article a couple times and I can't see where it says that you need to use an LLM to make it universal. I'm going to go so far as to say that it doesn't say that.

So on the one hand, you acknowledge that the admin has done similar things. On the other hand, you think it's "obvious" that they didn't do this thing. Which, again, is similar to other things. That they have done.

The best advice I've ever heard, I'm going to proffer to you: remove the word "obvious" from your vocabulary.

I actually don't really care whether it's benign or not. Not everyone cares about this as much as you do. I just think soapbox warrioring needs to be addressed.

Just to corroborate, I ordered my birth certificate from NY this year and there's an 8 month turn around time. And no Covid shutdowns, last I checked.

This is a really strange take to me. If I go online to look up my rights from an official source, like the Library of Congress, and some of them are missing, that isn't benign. No, it hasn't changed the law, but it changes what I know about the law.

Y'all act like the administration didn't rename the Gulf of Mexico like it changes the physical gulf or ownership status. Or direct museums about how to portray history. Or, historically, sharpie on a weather map. Removing or changing information as they find convenient is entirely reasonable to expect from the admin.

That said, they rolled it back, so likely someone effed up.

> it seems like Thompson is being awfully selective about which antitrust-related criticisms he's responding to here

He was responding to a specific critique of his book. So... yes. That's how that works.

"Economic statistics shows it hasn't been captured"

Your citation

* Doesn't show how labor compensation is distributed among workers (CEO pay vs. median wages).

* Doesn't account for how capital returns are distributed among different wealth levels.

This isn't a critical take, it's a cynical one. It's a climate change denial site. Suggest not bothering to follow this link, it's intellectually lazy. The central claims that the article's information isn't anywhere in the study. Which is misleading: the researchers have said these things elsewhere about the research in the study.