saghm

That would be an excellent argument if the government were a for-profit enterprise. Since it's a government, the opportunity cost of what to spend money on at a critical moment in time when a lot of people are vulnerable seems like the better way to analyze the decision to me.

Although I'm sure this is mostly predicated on my political bias, I'm also reasonably confident that your analysis is as well. I'm not sure you're as aware of it though

I'm not sure at all what you're talking about at this point. The most relevant thing I can find with the abbreviation "sdf" is https://sdf.org/, but I don't understand what hypothetical version of that you're talking about where would be entirely contained within a Chrome instance.

> Chrome is pretty efficient, as far as per page costs go! If your architecture isn't trash!

> The sin is this ridiculous era of every program shipping its own runtime. I'm headed for real down votes, but this is the same lazy culture that's taken over everywhere: go and rust both ship these huge statically compiled binaries.

Go and Rust are pretty efficient too, if your architecture isn't trash. If it is, they still probably are more efficient than Electron

FIPS is a US government security standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIPS_140

It doesn't have much to do with this CVE, but if you're trying to sell to the US government, it will often be a requirement, which means that a company making money from those sales will not easily be able to move to a distro without that certification.

Years ago, one of the broadcasters for a Red Sox game was doing some ad read about some event Stevie Nicks was going to be at, but they read her name as "Steve Nicks" instead. Someone else in the booth corrected them, and they responded "I know him well, and I call him Steve". A fan apparently sent them a giant poster of Stevie Nicks, and the others put it up in the booth and teased him about it relentlessly during the next game.

Trillion dollar company repeatedly does things in their own self interest at the expense of the rest of society. Individual does something in their own self-interest at the expense of trillion dollar company.

You're not wrong, but only in the sense that OpenAI and plenty of other powerful companies are full of people doing pretty much the same thing, and they cause a lot more "nice things" to disappear than individuals like the one you're talking about could ever cause to get taken away in their lifetime.

If you're asking seriously and just sounding condescending by accident, I think you're missing my point, which is that it ended up not really mattering in terms of most of my work. It's possible to get enough intuition of how "big" things are that working with the tools doesn't require a ton of peeking under the hood.

Back in January, when I had yet to try to use Claude or Codex yet, one of my coworkers was giving an informal presentation to a room of us on how he had been using LLMs in various workflows, and while he was giving an explanation of how overfilling the context window can reduce the quality of the output, I asked what I knew sounded like a stupid question that was dipping my toe into the water of learning how to use agents for coding: "What's a token?" It's kind of wild that now over nine months later, my understanding of that is still kind of fuzzy.

Also an accomplished fencer; the article mentions he's done fairly well in European tournaments!

I'm not opposed to using the same shortcuts as editors (which is what tmux already does; you can even pick between emacs and vim shortcuts, in addition to configuring your own); there's just a lot of other stuff I _don't_ want from a text editor for my existing terminal output, like, editing text.

For sure, I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases that would probably reach the threshold needed to convince a judge that don't exist because prosecutors don't actually file charges. I don't see any reason to assume that a judge would block a case if surveillance law were changed to forbid something and a federal prosecutor tried to bring charges against members of a former administration for violating them. I think in the past, there's been a reluctance by administrations to try to press charges against previous ones (e.g. the Obama administration not wanting to prosecute anyone in the Bush administration for "enhanced interrogation"), but the current incarnation of the DoJ seems a lot more open to pressing charges for much pettier political reasons than true violation of federal law, and if a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, I would not be shocked if there's significant political pressure to try to prosecute members of the current administration (assuming they don't receive blanket pardons, of course).

> However, if they're at parity then the incentive is to just squeeze your assets for as much income as possible until you run their value into the ground. Which seems like a pressure for business owners / shareholders to be even more short-sighted than they already are.

"Companies often act dumb, and therefore we should charge them less in tax" is not a particularly compelling argument to me.

> Again, a baseball card doesn’t earn money or do anything profitable in the real physical world. A company often does.

Amazon currently has close to 11 billion shares of stock (https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/shares...). Do you seriously believe that 1/11,000,000,000th control over Amazon in terms of voting rights is worth $240? A single vote is indistinguishable from meaningless.

It's a sale of stock from a third party to the company. I don't know how you could claim otherwise.

Ah okay, I had misunderstood you as referring to like, bot farms or something, not developers going out of their way to make it easier for people to accidentally click

IP protection once again scales with your wallet, where the benefits disproportionately help those who already have the most resources and hinders those with the least.

Pretty much the first thing I tried to set up with I heard about Zellij and decided to give it a shot a while back was how to scroll back and copy paste text without using the mouse, since that's one of the core features of tmux for me. If my recollection is correct, the closest thing that I was able to figure out was some sort of built-in way to open output in a vim buffer, with the info I found when googling basically saying that it was intentionally not something the developers felt like it was important to implement anything closer to tmux for. Maybe it's changed since then but I distinctly got the impression that it using it would force me to adapt to a bunch of new workflows that didn't resemble anything I had seen before, and it didn't really seem worth the effort.

This entire discussion is post hoc, unless you're assuming that everyone who is commenting here happened to also have criticized him publicly in the past. There's no statute of limitations for people voicing their opinion on something they just learned about from a while back.

I get what you're saying, but fraud is different from accidents by otherwise real people.

I'm not sure what the third company you're referring to is (I've read through the article twice and only see DoorDash and Instacart (which I guess is incorporated as "Maplebear", but not a separate company from what it sounds like), but I've ordered from both of them, albeit not recently (my wife and I have been using FreshDirect lately). The value proposition of getting groceries delivered for us is that we don't drive (or have a car) and the grocery store is over 20 minutes away walking distance from us. The extra cost to have them delivered is far less than the cost and maintenance of having a car, and the convenience of being able to have it done even during times when I'm busy working from home is added bonus. My wife also has a condition where the treatment is essentially turning off her immune system every six months, so the safety of not exposing her to something by doing shopping in person is not something I'd ever want to give up.

I guess I could like, get a shopping cart and spent an extra 40 minutes hauling stuff back and forth every time we wanted groceries, but even that would be somewhat dependent on weather; a delivery driver is not going to have to walk 40 minutes in heavy rain and can bring frozen goods in an amount of time that doesn't result in them being soggy or completely melted messes by the time they reach us.

> This is incorrect. A buyback is when a company buys its stock. It is giving cash to shareholders, and taking the shares back

When a company buys stock, the money comes from the company. You're literally saying the same thing as me and telling me I'm wrong. It's not worth it for me to read beyond that because it's not clear you're reading what I'm saying properly.

If you wanted to base the entirety of the world economy on baseball cards, I'd say that you're crazy. The fact that you put company names on them instead and don't make them physical cards doesn't make it less crazy.

This just sounds like nonsense to me. Why would it be "more valuable" to have a piece of paper with the name of a company on it that makes more money on it than a company that made less money if it never translates to actually getting money from having it? You might as well be describing baseball cards, because someone else will want to pay more for a card that has a player who does really well even though they don't get anything from having it. That might be reasonable for collectors, but it's a pretty clearly insane basis for such a huge portion of our economic activity.

I can't tell if you're being condescending intentionally or not, but I'm not sure how you could get the impression that I don't understand what "buyback" means. Obviously it comes from the company; otherwise it's just a regular stock sale that doesn't need any additional descriptor.

The issue to me is that the division between "money companies get from selling their shares" and "money companies get from selling their products" is artificial; whether it gets taxed differently is a procedural issue, not something that inherently defines what "value" is. When the value of something is only from selling it again in the future, it's inherently only valuable as long as there's someone else to pass it onto to sell it again later. Sticking the company in the middle of passing it along doesn't magically change whether it's sensible or not. That's what I mean by "effectively a Ponzi scheme", even if it's not strictly one in the definitional sense. The same arguments for why a Ponzi scheme is undesirable apply.

> We have three branches of government for a reason, its up to the judicial to decide what cases will or won't be tried, and they should be basing that on evidence alone.

The judicial branch does not decide who to prosecute. They're supposed to ensure that the law is applied consistently, but prosecutorial discretion is entirely up to the DoJ and at least nominally is part of the executive branch (for federal crimes). They also don't directly decide whether someone is convicted in most cases; a judge can throw out a meritless case or in rare cases vacate a jury verdict, but the jury verdict itself is outside of any of the three branches by design.

In any case though, this is isn't super relevant to my comment you replied to. The parent comment claimed that the debate about the law was purely theater, and I argued that it might not be because someone could get prosecuted for it if the law isn't on the books. Whether the DoJ should try to prosecute someone for something is not the same as whether they will try to. The DoJ has tended to operate in a somewhat removed way from the whims of the president in the aftermath of Watergate, but that's a precedent that's been pretty clearly been eroded in recent years. That doesn't mean political prosecutions will be successful, but using legalism as a way of trying to enforce one's political agenda is not a new phenomenon; the Bush administration had lawyers write up opinions justifying their use of "enhanced interrogation" because being able to couch one's actions in legal terms is one of many ways to try to build support (or mitigate opposition) to them. Having laws that say something is not allowed has at least some effect even when people try to get away with violating them, even if it's only in the form of soft pressure.

> The cash for Ponzi schemes comes from other investors, which they receive in exchange for issuing more securities and use to fund investors who want to cash out.

If the value of something is only "someone else will pay for it, and then later they will sell it", that to me is effectively the same as a Ponzi scheme. There's no inherent value in the actual thing being bought and sold other than the buying and selling of it. Maybe calling them "Pokemon cards for companies" would be a better way of describing why I find it nonsensical to claim there's any real link between the company and the stock unit when buybacks are the only way to make money off them.

I guess this is where politics comes into it, because in general I don't really like the idea of a capital gains tax at a much lower rate than income in the first place.

I'd argue that if the only value of something is that you can sell it later, that is a weird. At best, it's like a collectible card or something, and at worst, it's just a Ponzi scheme.

I don't understand how "the value of this is that someone will buy it back from you later" to be different from a Ponzi scheme.

I see it as a Ponzi scheme when people argue that they're a replacement for dividends. You're describing them as if dividends are an assumption, in which case they're perfectly reasonable.