bob001

It's not ugly. It's generic. That's the problem. Ugly can be eye catching. Generic will never be. Ferrari sells eye catching.

> will instantly recognize it,

It looks like a generic Hyundai. If not for the badge I'd have assumed it was some Chinese mid tier EV.

Those aren't touch screen buttons. Clear in any non-frontal image of which there's plenty.

Yes, people spend $640,000 based on some news...

I think you highlighted something without meaning to. The core problem is that short of literally nuking Brussels I don't think the EU will ever think the threshold was crossed. Even then I'm not sure. The US has threatened to invade sovereign EU territory multiple times this week alone and we're still having this chat here. The US will keep pushing because the EU does basically nothing when it's literally threatened with invasion.

> retaliation would mean more anti-US people selecting themselves into these projects.

Very few people are martyrs or want to become martyrs. Even fewer in places where life is generally fine and for a cause that isn't dire to their loved ones.

> The reason Germany didn't prepare for it was because multiple leading politicians were bought and paid for by Russia. Be totally clear about that. Former German president was working for Gazprom on the project whose stated aim was to facilitate an invasion of Ukraine at some point (which Trump pointed out, and EU politicians literally laughed at him).

To add to your point, despite this the German population seems to strongly believe there is no corruption in their government. Local minima, everything is fine, there is no fire, I'm going to make some tea while the tables turns to ash under the pot.

Those old enough will remember when Hare Krishnas proved that for a lot of people even a single cheap flower can trigger a feeling of reciprocity. It doesn't take much. The Airplane joke exists because the best way to avoid that is to not accept. Once you do...

I guess you never dealt with enterprise sales, lobbying or any of the hundred of ways we legally allow bribes. Or do you only consider it bribery if its illegal and otherwise it's all fine?

Just box office baseball tickets, just a $2k steak dinner with high end wine, just a phone call with the governor, just a gift card, just an advisor position with some equity, etc, etc, etc.

> Nobody's bribing a councilmember in an 800-person rural township.

I suspect this happens a lot more often than people assume. It does not take much to bribe people to change their minds based on the publicly known international spy/espionage cases. People will sell out their country for like $5k.

A Director is middle management. Line managers are the ones that turn that into action and they are not middle management.

Middle management is also why there’s so many broken processes and challenges in the first place.

> Like how anyone can basically take all you work & base a proprietary fork on it with maybe saying "thanks" (attribution) if they feel like it ? :P

I'd assume the Bun people got a bit more than a thanks when Anthropic acquired them. :)

You also can't take your GPL code (unless you do CLAs with all contributors), convert it to closed source yourself and make a massive VC funded startup around it. Which is about the only other way anyone makes better money from open source than by just working for a big tech company.

> The visa applications should considered based on merit and not just about capital.

If it has merit then you should have no trouble getting some investors lined up...

> Apartment prices are ALMOST back to where they were in 1989.

You mean when Japan was in an epic price bubble (ie: the imperial palace land alone was worth more than all of California) which was followed by decades of economic stagnation? I'd guess that has impacted their view on real estate to a somewhat unique degree in the world.

And yet companies file for bankruptcy and get liquidated all the time versus being bought.

Yeah, if the foreign entrepreneur argument is that they're helping the Japanese economy and not just barely sustaining another person in japan then the new requirements seem exactly in line with that?

Does Japan need more small businesses owned by foreigners (that make so little money as to be useless for economic growth) or do they actually need more foreigners to change the adult diapers of their ever aging population?

> then you end up with a different interface everywhere.

This whole post is about someone being upset that Firefox finally did support the system level interface and shortcut. And you're upset about that while asking for consistent interfaces. Some people can just never be happy I guess.

I'd bet money that the gun lobby is behind this. What better way to dilute the anti-gun sentiment then to get useless legislation that targets a group that has traditionally been anti-gun. Even the EFF, which generally doesn't touch second amendment stuff, is speaking up. Massive gun lobby win right there.

More I'd guess since the new org needs to prove itself long enough for stock to vest. Fudge the benchmarks gives them a longer horizon before they're all fired anyways.

My sense is that it sounds amazing in theory to executives who have never had to themselves look at internal data. In reality the internal knowledge base is a mix of incomplete, inaccurate, self serving lies, out of date and so on. At worst, the data is explicitly biased to hide reality from executives so the AI will look extra good to executives. Of course, a business that makes all tactical decisions based on lies is not going to do well.

> well good luck for the authorities to get it.

"We want your data on X, here;'s a warrant."

"No."

"You are now under arrest for contempt of court."

People have some oddly silly views on what government can and can't do to people living in their territories.

And companies really really don't care if the government has their data.

> host your e-mails in a datacenter in Hong-Kong

Now China has it, gives it a competitor in China and your market share drops like a stone. Congrats! Great choice!

No, it's "if you already have engineers that know your stack and customers and business then getting rid of them to save a bit of short term cash is stupid unless you're out of runway because of bad business decisions." That is a tangential point to hiring more engineers. You may slow down the rate or hiring however the ROI for getting rid of them in a growing startup is silly imho. A collapsing startup is a different beast.

If a startup is laying off engineers then it’s dead in the water. That means it’s not growing and focused on cost cutting at the expense of velocity. Thats what a large company does. The issue isn’t AI but the startup fundamentally being broken and this being a last gasp for air before it dies.

There's exception and geniuses to every rule. In general however a simple solution will be much more difficult to argue a promotion around even if you make a ton of impact. You may get a top rating and a slightly larger bonus however not a promotion.

Every large company has a ladder for promotions that includes many words that basically come down to "complex." "Drive a year long initiative" or "multiple teams" or "large complex task with multiple components" are all examples I've seen.

This lets you not even need Python, r, Julia, etc but directly connect to your backend systems that are presumably in a fast language. If Python is in your call stack then you already don’t care about absolute performance.

> have equal chance to be malicious.

Is A has a p chance of being malicious and B has a q chance of being malicious then the chance of them both being malicious is pq. pq <= p and p*q <= q.

I'm honestly not sure why its so hard for you to understand that TWO people being malicious at the same time is less likely than either being mailicous on their own.

> But this is only true if you trust the peer more than the author

Peer review means that EITHER the author or the peer are trustworthy. Not one. Not the other. The failure mode is that BOTH are untrustworthy and not that EITHER is untrustworthy on their own. This is different from no peer review where the author is a single point of failure. There is furthermore the overall system of peer review with some level of checks within it if a peer or author end up being visibly untrustworthy. Not perfect however the same can be said for every single part of human society.

> Every time I see people go "BUT IS IT PEER REVIEWED !??" I can't help but chuckle.

And I sort of chuckle at people like you who don't realize that all of human society if built on the exact same vague fuzzy framework. It's not about absolutes but about levels of trustworthiness and system level checks.

Edit: In this case, for example, the quote is based on a study that the speaker did not publish. The study actually says the exact opposite. So now there's THREE levels of trust that can cross verify. The speaker, the original study authors and the peer reviews. In this case the speaker clearly is not trustworthy as their own source material disagrees with them. Had I simply blindly trusted the speaker this would not have been evident but due to having a study I can verify.

Let's see what this study actually says, shall we?

> Students who spent up to one hour per day on digital devices for learning activities in school scored 14 points higher in mathematics than students who spent no time, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and this positive relationship is observed in over half (45 countries and economies) of all systems with available data.

That sounds like school laptops to me.