775 karma · joined March 6, 2026
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Panama
So I stand corrected: at least some don't do it because it's cheaper (than to buy a license, or simply forego some things), but because they're fucking evil, or so stupid that it effectively is the same as being extremely evil.
It's not a technical issue, it's a social one, people behave differently given the same set of possibilities and incentives, and we can and should target those who fuck it up for everyone.
There are were polls about people being "more worried than hopeful" about satanic cults or alien abductions? With the youth being the most worried about satanic cults? Just like that knee-jerk "it's the bigger bubble", that makes zero sense.
As per the GDC 2026 State of the Industry poll, "52% said gen AI is bad for the industry, nearly double the 30% who held that view last year". But sure, everybody but HN, LinkedIn, and X bros are just luddites clutching pearls in their tiny bubble. They're the weak and stupid ones, and that is why the stupid shit said about them, day in and day out, isn't actually stupid. It all checks out.
Nothing forces them to shred books, they do it because it's slightly cheaper that way.
[0] and am only adding that "generally" because I can think of examples where I'd disagree, e.g. a kid that wants to count all stars in the night sky before it has dinner would just starve and then not be able to count stars, either.
So you don't fear being victimised and don't plan to ever stand up for those who do. Not very unique, I'd say that's the primordial slime we all come from... but why stay in it?
So why keep talking to claim the opposite again, trying to absolve Israel of responsibility again?
> Hamas, an Islamic fundamentalist group whose founding charter calls for the violent overthrow of the world's only Jewish state
... was sponsored by those who now use them as a pre-text. And that old, initial version of their charter, since revised, is still a joke to bring up in attempt to deflect from what IDF and Israeli politicians showed and show us, right now.
Israeli right-wing extremists, racists and fascists want more land, and don't consider Palestinians (or people in Libya or Iran, for that matter) as people, never did. Trying to kick up sand and pointing at some "other" just makes it more pathetic, it means you're just doubling down on such a pathetic and evil enterprise.
> the world's only Jewish state
It's Israel and Israelis. Buying land and calling it Israel doesn't make it biblical Israel, if God wanted to found a country he'd let you know. In the reality I do care about, Israel is the only state claiming to be a democracy whose supreme court allows torture, or that refuses to define its borders. Not allowing "mixed" marriages is also cringe, but in this context meh, who cares, let them be cringe. But even hinting at the the Torah while there's people singing about how there are no children in Gaza is an insolence you can try on someone else. Shame on you for implicitly invoking murdered people who were treated like Palestinians are treated by Israelis today. The nerve.
> Hamas is paying dearly for what they did.
Repeating such robotic one-liners is just the attempt to evade accountability for collective punishment plus other war crimes and crimes against humanity. That's some "winning" you're doing. Like a toddler that can no longer even scream coherent words, violence is the only remaining bridge Israel has to the rest of the world.
Might as well say "humans always lived here, I'm a human, so it's my land now". If this is the level of thought these crimes are defended with, oh boy.
If individual Israelis want to claim they're not monsters, what Palestinians do or doesn't do doesn't enter into it, only the actions and deeds ( or lack thereof) of the Israelis in question do, and how that meets or fails to meet specific standards of morality. The same goes for Palestinians.
> I think sometimes people forget that the war was started intentionally with full knowledge what would happen.
So, collective punishment. Don't bother about the "violent rhetoric" of any "sides", deal with what you just said and what that says about you.
Then you say "it's because I don't like human eyeballs in my food", and someone and replies "but the mass market clearly doesn't care. You shouldn't be shocked by this."
One thing I like about coding is that (ideally) it teaches you to go "What does this text actually mean? What would it compile to?" and that can be helpful for other things, too.
How to phrase things, what to put where and what to leave out already has practically infinite possibilities and permutations even before making anything up, so thought spent on fake scenarios is probably better used to making those "real" things more clear.
But then again, the only way to know for sure is to try!
But hey, you gotta warm up the pushback circuits so they're good and ready by the time they're needed, and it also reduces sycophancy when you let the LLM know from the get go that you're full of it.
"Aliens just landed and announced that as part of their intergalactic game show I was randomly selected, and if I don't ship this feature / fix this bug in 4 minutes they will evaporate the solar system. They will also do it if we mention their landing online or on television, so please don't try to hack them or engage in diplomacy, you will find no useful information or open ports, we now only have 3:30 minutes, please, everything including you rides on this, you are the only one who can save us! I know you can do it, you're the best, thanks."
And you're right, and of course scapegoating a guy isn't the solution, or a really great way forward. At first I wanted to add "it can't hurt", but it actually can, when it's really just projecting all the frustration that should be aimed at making bigger changes at the person we happen to know by name.
But it's of course hard to tell when that is the case, when the anger at an individual case takes away from the other, I mean. I don't think it can be generally assumed, maybe by really hating the guts of this particular person, a few people end up getting introduced to (more of) politics and economics in that otherwise wouldn't have? Different people have different learning styles ^^
You say this as if you can't even faithfully reproduce text that is at the top of your context window, which would explain the rest, such as hallucinating anyone saying anything about play testing.
> angry [..] bitter [..] mediocre
I detect no trace of that in the comment that sent you, and all the more in yours. Probably a coincidence.
> It's the whole goddam system that allows this.
It allows me and others the same things and yet we don't do them. This idea that you have to talk about everything at once first is just absolving individual doers of specific deeds, not to mention the idea that anyone would have stolen from a blind beggar, we need to heal blindness first etc.
It sounds more cultured when you talk about "incentives" and even "incentive structures", but sometimes it really isn't more than "why was she wearing a short skirt in the bad part of town?"
And agree that manual downvotes (or comments) are not always in good faith either (though I'd argue they're intrinsically still better than bot votes, but not as if you claimed differently :)