reciprocity
reciprocity on Hacker News
This comment is fundamentally not understanding USAID's role. You are not equipped for a discussion on this issue.
What are you doing here? This is both an emotional and yet unsubstantiated comment. Would you like to try again?
The Windows 11 right click contextual menu is an order of magnitude worse. Not only that, but the delay in opening is more than perceptible. Annoying regression.
Wow what the hell, Salesforce.
How does one make a comment like this, I wonder, and not substantiate.
I appreciate the correction; I misread that. Thanks.
OpenOffice is no longer actively developed. It was replaced by LibreOffice quite awhile ago.
Thanks, I also hate it when I encounter websites that block VPNs.
The parent comment has a point. A layperson (or at least many people not read into this topic) isn't going to read the language in that privacy policy and come to the conclusion that "any private web page you ask Gemini about will be dumped into our training data". The text on Google's privacy page could absolutely be made more explicit.
It really isn't. It's destructive and short sighted behavior based on incoherent dogmatism over any motivations for thoughtful and more restrained policy decision making. His motivations for any action is based on flattery and ego that stretch the boundaries of multiple universes. It's so crazy how much blatantly unconstitutional stuff he's gotten away with.
With how much worse the experience of using Windows has gotten, why wait? Many hills have already come and gone. This is the hill you're willing to die on?
I don't think you read his comment for comprehension. Whatever prompted your response does not follow from what the parent comment said.
Nodded my head in agreement as I read this comment.
I appreciate you posting this link.
I also think the claim that "the brain does not retain information it does not need" is an insufficient explanation, and short-sighted. As an example, reading books informs and shapes our thinking, and while people may not immediately recall a book that they read some time ago, I've had conversations where I remembered that I had read a particular passage (sentence, phrase, idea) and referred to it in the conversation.
People do stuff like that all the time, bringing up past memories in spontaneity. The brain absolutely does remember things it "doesn't need".
It would help further a good-faith discussion if you were first more precise in defining what you mean. Please be specific with your premise and what you would do to fix the flaws you see.
Maybe start with the part where you say "science and medicine are stagnant", therefore "we should burn it all down and start over". This is how misinterpretations and assumptions start and does not benefit mutual intellectual understanding.
I think you might be misunderstanding op's comment. "Because the amoral drive for extreme wealth doesn't stop at a certain level of wealth" is a statement that I read on its face. One does not need to reach for "conspiracy" as a way to explain the behavior of people faced with an opportunity to acquire more money: just look at the 5-6 posts making the same point in this very sub-thread. Did you miss those or did you mean to post this reply somewhere else? Money is a huge motivator for many people.
I, too, find it bothersome when people refer to an opinion written in a post and generalizes as if it were the opinion of an entire community. HN is not one person; it's wrong to refer to it as if it is.
Haven't you seen the documentary Inside Job covering the 2008 financial crisis? "Burning it all down and starting over" is a very immature and myopic perspective and cannot be taken seriously as a workable solution. The solution is to implement regulation that, very broadly here, enacts mechanisms to make private gain for public loss something incredibly difficult to do.
There need to be checks against people in positions of great wealth, power, and influence because people cannot be trusted to self-regulate and Do the Right Thing when large sums of money are on the table. "Self-determination of a conflict of interest is itself a conflict of interest."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(2010_film)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2IaJwkqgPk
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-05/white-hou...
You're not accounting for the fact that it is in America's best interests to have allies, most of whom are across those same oceans. And vice versa.
Please feel free to return when you are ready to participate in a discussion as a grown adult.
Why haven't you responded to the substance of my point? Again:
> Elon Musk is also not an auditor. DOGE is not an auditing entity. You bring in accountants to audit. These are 20 y/o something programmers. How DOGE has been operating has been completely opaque and this lack of transparency just plays to the point that what someone says their goals are and what their actual goals are are not mutually exclusive, so no, Elon Musk shouldn't be allowed anywhere near these systems.
Your comments throughout this thread have a lot of baked-in assumptions (again in your reply with the bit about "tech people having earned enough trust" and reducing the whole tech industry to that of a "whiz kid who just doesn't fix websites anymore". Seriously? You really don't grasp how reductionist of a thought process this is?) and a closer examination on your behalf is warranted. Complex questions never have simple one-liner answers.
Even in this very thread there is stuff like this [0] being posted.
[0] https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-doge-firings-trump-federa...
The USG does in fact know how to build a website and it is intellectually lazy (so very lazy) to suggest otherwise. A high profile illustration of this is login.gov, which is SSO used across USG agencies. It's not possible to take a comment like this seriously, at all.
Elon Musk is also not an auditor. DOGE is not an auditing entity. You bring in accountants to audit. These are 20 y/o something programmers. How DOGE has been operating has been completely opaque and this lack of transparency just plays to the point that what someone says their goals are and what their actual goals are are not mutually exclusive, so no, Elon Musk shouldn't be allowed anywhere near these systems.
If the guidelines are reasonable but their application is lacking, what's your idea of a solution? Hire more moderators?
I'll leave the authoritarianism aspect to someone else but I'll point out that the part of your comment where "he makes his money from the leisure industry, so his interests are aligned with Americans doing well and having disposable income" is not representative of his ability let alone judgement in planning/making decisions that reflect those interests. You can be in favor of something and completely botch the execution.
The PATRIOT Act was introduced by a Republican and signed into law by a Republican and had wide support from both parties. 62 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted against it in the House (there was only a single senate vote against it), and you can't have a discussion about the Patriot Act's introduction without bringing up the fact that it was enacted at the height of the post-9/11 fear. It has always been a controversial and flawed bill.
Most of today's social issues aren't about left versus right, they are about class.